Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact · Crystal Cedar Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact 2 selected alternative is found in appendix A of this decision

1

Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for the

Crystal Cedar Project USDA Forest Service

Hungry Horse-Glacier View Ranger District Flathead National Forest

Flathead County, Montana March 2020

Introduction The Crystal Cedar project area is approximately 27,249 acres in size and is bounded to the south by the community of Columbia Falls and to the west by the Flathead River. This area includes Crystal Creek, Cedar Flats, Spoon Lake, Blankenship Road, and Teakettle Mountain and is located on the Hungry Horse-Glacier View Ranger District.

The purpose of the Crystal Cedar Project is to move the project area towards the desired conditions defined by the 2018 Flathead National Forest Land Management Plan (forest plan). The difference between the existing condition and the desired condition creates a need for management action on the ground. The purposes for the Crystal Cedar Project are identified below, and compel the need for action.

• Provide sustainable trail-based recreation opportunities close to local communities that are compatible with other resources.

• Reduce tree densities and fuel loadings within the wildland-urban interface to result in less intense fire behavior near communities and facilitate safe wildland fire operations.

• Improve the diversity and resilience of forest vegetative communities and associated wildlife habitat.

• Provide a mix of forest products to contribute to economic sustainability, providing jobs and income to local economies.

The updated environmental assessment (EA) documents the analysis of a proposed action and no-action alternative to meet this need. This decision notice identifies the activities I have selected to include in my decision and the rationale for that decision, including the finding of no significant impact that shows that an environmental assessment is the appropriate level of analysis. This document includes two maps of the selected alternative and an appendix. Appendix A describes the selected alternative and the design features.

Decision and Rationale for the Decision Based upon my review of the alternatives, I have decided to implement the proposed action with modifications, which includes 3,722 acres of vegetation management and construction of approximately 25 miles of trails on National Forest System (NFS) lands. A summary of the selected alternative is displayed in Table 1 and a description of the activities included in the

Crystal Cedar Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact

2

selected alternative is found in appendix A of this decision notice. The effects of these activities are described in the Crystal Cedar Updated Environmental Assessment November 2019, with supporting information in the project file.

Table 1. Selected alternative summary of activities Trail construction Miles

Nonmotorized trail 24.2 Motorized trail 0.4

Road management Miles Temporary roads 6 NFS system road construction 0.9 NFS system road reroute 0.2 NFS system road aquatic organism passage structures 1

Vegetation treatments Acres Commercial thin 1,886 Seed tree 458 Shelterwood 32 Clearcut 13 Overstory removal 46

Total commercial treatment 2,435

Estimated sawtimber volume 18,811 CCF (9.4 MMBF)

Acres Sapling thin 558 Understory removal 292 Live birch cutting along open roadsa 280 Prescribed burning (ecosystem burns) 157

Total noncommercial treatment 1,287 a. Acres of live birch cutting along open roads overlap with acres of other types of vegetation treatment

The selected alternative includes many of the activities included in the proposed action and analyzed in the updated EA, with modifications made due to public comment and resource concerns. The following changes were made in the selected alternative:

• Units 54 and 109 have been modified to drop riparian areas adjacent to private property.

• Units 119 and 119a will have hand piling of fuels treatments to address landowner concerns about equipment operating during the non-winter season.

• Units 68 and 128 will require winter logging to reduce ground disturbance, minimize weed spread, and avoid potential seasonal conflicts with local residents and visitors.


3

• Trail 11A was dropped to address concerns about potential effects to a fen and sensitive plant species.

• Units 11, 27, 29, 31, 46a, 81, 82a, 222, and temporary road M were dropped due to feasibility and further field review.

I believe that with these changes, the selected alternative will effectively meet the purpose and need for the project.

How the selected alternative addresses the purpose and need As stated in the updated environmental assessment (pp. 5-7), the purpose of the Crystal Cedar Project is to move the project area towards the desired conditions defined by the forest plan. The updated environmental assessment identifies the four purposes for the project which compel the need for action. The purposes of the project and the desired conditions applicable to the project include:

Provide sustainable trail-based recreation opportunities close to local communities that are compatible with other resources. The forest plan desired conditions relevant to the trails need for this project include:

FW-DC-IFS-08 The Forest’s trail system provides a variety of high-quality motorized and non-motorized recreational opportunities during summer and winter. Forest system trails access destinations, provide for loop opportunities that connect to larger trail systems, provide linkages from local communities to the Forest, and are compatible with other resources.

FW-DC-P&C-11 The Forest partners with local groups to develop and maintain a trail system as well as trail infrastructure, where compatible with other resources.

FW-DC-SREC-06 The summer roaded natural recreation opportunity spectrum is managed as natural in appearance with nodes and corridors of development that support higher concentrations of use, user comfort, and social interaction. The road system is well defined and can typically accommodate passenger car travel. Sanitation, potable water, interpretive signing, and other amenities are strategically placed to serve as destination points and/or portals to adjacent backcountry settings. Signing, facilities, bridges, and other infrastructure are constructed of native materials or natural-appearing materials that blend with and complement the surrounding natural setting.

FW-DC-S&E-03 Opportunities connect people, including youth, with the natural and cultural resources across the Forest through recreation and/or employment opportunities.

FW-DC-WL-03 The risk of grizzly bear-human conflicts is reduced by information, education, and design features or criteria for management activities.

MA7-DC-01 Focused recreation areas provide sustainable recreational opportunities and settings that respond to increasing recreation demand. Local


4

communities can readily access these areas for a variety of motorized and nonmotorized experiences.

GA-NF-MA7-Crystal-Cedar-DC-01

Recreational opportunities within the Crystal-Cedar Area provide a diversity of year-round recreational activities that are close to local communities.

GA-NF-MA7-Cedar Flats-OHV-DC-01

The Cedar Flats Off-Highway Vehicle Area provides a system of mechanized and motorized trails for mountain biking and off-highway vehicles on designated routes linking local communities to easily accessed recreation opportunities.

I have decided to include approximately 25 miles of new trail and two new trailheads in the selected alternative. This will expand the existing system of trails by providing motorized and nonmotorized loop opportunities close to the community of Columbia Falls to address the increasing demand for recreation opportunities (FW-DC-IFS-08, MA7-DC-01). The selected alternative will improve motorized trail loop opportunities through the addition of 0.4 miles of new OHV trail (GA-NF-MA7-Cedar Flats-OHV-DC-01) and provide approximately 24 miles of new nonmotorized trail to be designed in consideration of wildlife habitat, connectivity, aquatic resources, plant species of conservation concern, and other user groups (FW-DC-IFS-08). These new trails will be constructed and maintained through partnerships (FW-DC-P&C-11) and will provide opportunities to connect community members, including youth, to natural resources (FW-DC-S&E-03, GA-NF-MA7-Crystal-Cedar-DC-01). The project design features included in this decision will help reduce the potential for grizzly bear-human conflict by providing information at trailheads, maintaining sight distances, limiting speeds, and avoiding areas of dense vegetation (FW-DC-WL-03, FW-GDL-IFS-15). This project does not foreclose opportunities for future projects to address other desired conditions identified in the forest plan. Although it was decided that changes to over-the-snow use in the project area is outside the scope of this project, we believe that the trailheads proposed will provide an opportunity for improved winter access to the Cedar Flats area through partnerships (GA-NF-MA7-Crystal-Cedar-DC-01, FW-DC-P&C-11).

Reduce tree densities and fuel loadings within the wildland-urban interface to result in less intense fire behavior near communities and facilitate safe wildland fire operations. The forest plan desired conditions relevant to the fuels reduction need for this project include:

FW-DC-FIRE-02 In areas where wildfires on NFS lands pose a threat to communities and community assets (e.g., power lines, communication towers, developed recreation sites, recreation residences, adjacent private land, and structures), wildland fuel is reduced so the expected fire behavior is reduced.

FW-DC-TE&V-13 …Forests at lower densities (i.e., less than 40 percent canopy cover) occur on up to 50 percent of the forested area and are most commonly located in the warm-dry potential vegetation type; on the drier and colder sites within the cool-moist and cold potential vegetation types; and in the wildland-urban interface.


5

Forest densities contribute to ecological, social, and economic desired conditions at the stand and landscape scales, including:

• Wildlife habitat, e.g., providing cover and foraging conditions for many species including Canada lynx and flammulated owl, and facilitating tree growth for development of very large trees and future old-growth forest.

• Forest resilience, e.g., reducing competition, improving tree vigor and growth, and reducing forest fuels in areas of the wildland-urban interface.

• Timber productivity on lands suitable for timber production, e.g., maintaining adequate tree growth rates and stocking levels.

The 3,722 acres of vegetation management included in the selected alternative are focused on reducing forest densities (FW-DC-TE&V-13) and wildland fuel to change fire behavior in the wildland-urban interface and adjacent to private lands (FW-DC-FIRE-02). As is detailed in the updated EA and response to comments (appendix B of the draft decision notice), modifying fuel conditions provides the greatest chance in stopping a wildfire start. The modifications made to units to address public concern, will still allow vegetation treatments to meet the purpose and need for reducing fuel loading.

Improve the diversity and resilience of forest vegetative communities and associated wildlife habitat. FW-DC-RMZ-06 Cover conditions in riparian management zones contribute to habitat

connectivity for a variety of wildlife species (e.g., Canada lynx, grizzly bear, marten, and fisher).

FW-DC-TE&V-01 Within the NCDE primary conservation area, the amount, type, and distribution of vegetation provides for the ecological, social, and economic sustainability of NFS lands while also providing habitat components that contribute to sustaining the recovery of the grizzly bear population in the NCDE. See also FW-DC-WL-02.

FW-DC-TE&V-02 Within the NCDE primary conservation area, there is a mosaic of successional stages to provide for grizzly bear habitat needs over the long term.

FW-DC-TE&V-07 The Forest has a diversity of native tree species, with most stands composed of more than one tree species… (see forest plan pp. 26-27 for more information on desired conditions for coniferous forests).

FW-DC-TE&V-08 Presence of tree species within each potential vegetation type meets or trends towards desired conditions, as described in table 4… ( see forest plan pp. 27-29 for more information on desired conditions for potential vegetation types).

FW-DC-TE&V-09 Non-coniferous vegetation types are present across the Forest and meet the characteristics described in table 5. These communities provide habitat for associated wildlife species… (see forest plan pp. 29-30 for description of the hardwood and shrub communities desired conditions).


6

FW-DC-TE&V-10 A diversity of forest size classes occurs across the Forest. Desired conditions forestwide for forest size class proportions are described in table 6 (forest plan p. 30). Forest size class amount and distribution fluctuate over time and space as forests develop through natural succession and/or change in response to disturbances and may be limited by site productivity, species composition, and forest density.

FW-DC-TE&V-11 A diversity of forest size classes occurs within each potential vegetation type. The desired range forestwide is described in table 7 (forest plan p. 31). Forest size classes fluctuate over time and space as forests develop through natural succession and change in response to disturbances. These desired conditions, in combination with those described for composition, pattern, and other vegetation components in this plan, create habitat that supports a wide variety of wildlife associated with forests in the potential vegetation type.

FW-DC-TE&V-12 Very large live trees (greater than 20 inches d.b.h.) are present not only in the very large forest size class (see FW-DC-TE&V-10 and 11) but are also distributed throughout other forest size classes across the matrix of Forest lands, including areas where timber harvest activities occur….

FW-DC-TE&V-15 Desired conditions for snag densities across the Forest are displayed in table 10 (see forest plan p. 34). At the landscape scale, snag presence, distribution, density, size, and species are highly variable both spatially and over time. Individual stands or sites may have no snags in these size categories or a much higher number of snags per acre, depending upon the unique conditions and disturbance history…

FW-DC-TE&V-16 Snags contribute to cavity habitat distribution in managed areas of the Forest in the short and long term. Snags or decaying and broken-topped live trees greater than 20 inches d.b.h. are present, predominantly ponderosa pine or western larch (which have the greater longevity and value as snags), providing habitat for primary cavity nesters (a variety of woodpecker species), secondary cavity-nesters (such as flammulated owls), and mammals (such as marten and fisher). These and other snags greater than 15 inches d.b.h. are also available for boreal owls, chickadees, bluebirds, and numerous other species associated with tree cavities.

FW-DC-TE&V-17 Downed wood, especially the larger material (9 inches or larger in diameter), is present across the matrix of forested lands, contributing to forest structural diversity, soil ecological function, and habitat for wildlife species associated with downed wood for feeding, denning, resting, and cover such as pollinators, Canada lynx, grizzly bears, pileated woodpeckers, marten, and fisher. The desired condition for downed wood is displayed in table 11 (see forest plan p.34), which is expressed as a forestwide minimum average amount across all forested acres within each potential vegetation type…


7

FW-DC-TE&V-19 Forest patterns contribute to connectivity of habitat for wildlife (e.g., Canada lynx, marten), movement within and between home ranges, and dispersal between populations. Desired conditions related to forest patterns across the landscape and within potential vegetation types are described below (see forest plan p.35-39).

FW-DC-WL-01 Within the NCDE primary conservation area and zone 1 (including the Salish demographic connectivity area; see figure B-10), bear attractants on NFS lands are stored in a manner that reduces the risk of grizzly bear-human conflicts in the NCDE.

FW-DC-WL-02 Within the NCDE primary conservation area and zone 1 (including the Salish demographic connectivity area), grizzly bear habitat on NFS lands contributes to sustaining recovery of the grizzly bear population in the NCDE and contributes to connectivity with neighboring grizzly bear recovery zones.

FW-DC-WL DIV-01 Ecological conditions provide for wildlife diversity (including species of conservation concern) and wildlife habitat connectivity (including seasonal movements of animals within home ranges; the dispersal and genetic interchange between populations; and the long-distance range shifts of species). For desired conditions for select wildlife species, see table 14 (see forest plan p. 46-48).

GA-NF-DC-06 The Haskill Basin connectivity area (see figure B-30) provides habitat connectivity for wide-ranging wildlife species (e.g., grizzly bear, Canada lynx, wolverine) moving north-south between the Swan Range and the Whitefish Range.

The vegetation treatments will move stands towards the desired conditions for terrestrial ecosystems and vegetation as described in the updated EA (pp. 21-39). This includes activities that will increase the percent of western larch and western white pine in the project area (FW-DC-TE&V-07, FW-DC-TE&V-08) and increase the percent of the project area with large and very large forest size classes (FW-DC-TE&V-10, FW-DC-TE&V-11, FW-DC-TE&V-12). These treatments will reduce forest densities to improve tree growth and improve fuels conditions in the wildland-urban interface (FW-DC-TE&V-13).

The selected alternative includes vegetation treatments within the outer riparian management zone to promote the growth of large trees and increase the diversity of forest age classes, species composition, and forest density. Following treatment, riparian management zones will contribute to habitat connectivity for wildlife (FW-DC-RMZ-06) and will contribute to habitat connectivity within the Haskill Basin connectivity area (GA-NF-DC-06). The vegetation treatments will allow the landscape to develop a mosaic of successional states and maintain the habitat components that provide for grizzly bear habitat needs and contribute to recovery (FW-DC-TE&V-01, FW-DC-TE&V-02). The project design features that are included in the decision (appendix A) will retain and improve the densities of snags in the project area (FW-DC-TE&V-15, FW-DC-TE&V-16) and provide downed wood forest structural diversity, soil ecological function, and habitat for wildlife (FW-DC-TE&V-17). The project design features will also ensure that the landscape continues to provide for ecological conditions for wildlife diversity and habitat connectivity (FW-DC-WL DIV-01).


8

Provide a mix of forest products to contribute to economic sustainability, providing jobs and income to local economies. FW-DC-TIMB-01 Production of timber and timber harvest contributes to ecological

sustainability and contributes to the achievement of vegetation desired conditions (such as species composition, size class, forest density, vegetation diversity, landscape pattern, and forest resilience to disturbances).

FW-DC-TIMB-02 Production of timber and timber harvest contribute to economic sustainability, providing jobs and income to local economies. A mix of timber products (including both sawtimber and nonsawtimber) is offered under a variety of contract methods in response to market demand.

FW-DC-TIMB-07 Although natural disturbances (for example, wildfire, insects, and disease) occur on lands suitable for timber production, active management of these lands results in conditions that are resilient and/or resistant to such disturbances, with less potential loss of timber to natural disturbances compared to lands designated unsuitable for timber production.

FW-DC-OFP-03 Vegetation management activities augment the firewood program, providing opportunities for collecting firewood.

The 2,435 acres of commercial harvest authorized by this decision will provide a mix of timber products which contribute to the achievement of vegetative desired conditions (FW-DC-TIMB-01). This decision is economically viable and will contribute to the economic sustainability of local economies (FW-DC-TIMB-02).

As documented in the finding of no significant impact, it is my determination that the selected alternative will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, preparation of an environmental impact statement is not required. The finding of no significant impact also documents how this decision is consistent with all applicable law, regulations, and agency policies, including how the selected alternative is consistent with the forest plan, in accordance with the National Forest Management Act. Following this decision, timber harvest and associated activities could take approximately five years to implement and prescribed burning and trail work could take up to ten years to implement.

Other Alternatives Considered In addition to the proposed action, an alternative to change over-snow use in the project area; an alternative to add more trails; and the no-action alternative were considered.

Throughout the project development and environmental analysis process, we received public comments requesting a range of winter recreation opportunities be included in the Crystal Cedar Environmental Assessment. Those opportunities included a new snowmobile route, groomed fat bike trail, and groomed Nordic trails. In response to the Crystal Cedar EA, we received comments regarding groomed Nordic ski trails, including a map that identified potential trails within the Cedar Flats area (see appendix B, response to comments, in the draft decision notice and project file exhibit F-27). The proposed network overlaps an area where over-the-snow vehicle use is allowed (project file exhibit M-1). Establishing groomed Nordic trails here would necessitate


9

closing the area to snowmobiles. We also received comments from members of the public who enjoy the area under current winter management and want these roads and trails to remain ungroomed in the winter. After considering all these comments and possible alternatives, it was determined that changes to over-snow management was outside the scope of the Crystal Cedar Project and would not be analyzed in detail in the environmental analysis. Recently, individuals and organizations have expressed interest in developing additional groomed Nordic skiing on the Flathead National Forest, including, and outside of, the Crystal Cedar planning area. Discussions with my staff have already been initiated with the Nordic skiing community about potential opportunities for groomed Nordic routes on the Flathead National Forest and we look forward to more of these discussions.

We believe this decision will create infrastructure to provide improved winter parking opportunities at the 10815 trailhead, if a partner group is interested in maintaining winter access for the public.

We also received public comments requesting additional trails, mountain bike-specific trails, and a trail to the top of Teakettle Mountain. We considered these comments and decided that a downhill-specific trail would not meet the project’s focus on trails for a wide variety of users. A trail to the top of Teakettle Mountain would be located outside of management area 7 lands. Given these reasons, these comments and possible alternatives were considered but not fully analyzed as an alternative to the proposed action.

The interdisciplinary team analyzed the no-action alternative. The no-action alternative assumes that no implementation of any elements of the proposed action would take place within the Crystal Cedar project area. This alternative would not respond to the purpose and need for action or concerns identified during scoping. There would be no effort to make progress towards the desired condition for recreation opportunities near Columbia Falls. Fuels reductions would not occur to meet the desired conditions for less intense wildfire behavior and safe wildland firefighting operations. Vegetation management to move towards the desired condition for forest composition would not occur. Ongoing activities, such as recreation, public firewood gathering, fire suppression, and normal road maintenance would continue in this alternative. The no-action alternative serves as a point of comparison between the existing condition and the potential effects of the proposed action.

Public Involvement and Scoping The project has been listed on the Forest Service Schedule of Proposed Actions since January 2018.

In July 2017, the Cedar Flats Trail Group, a committee of the Gateway to Glacier Trail organization, submitted a draft proposal to establish a trail network for a wide variety of users north of Columbia Falls. Their proposal encompassed input from a variety of users in the community, nongovernmental organizations, and City of Columbia Falls leadership.

The ranger district asked the public for input on management activities in November 2017 when we sent out approximately 700 letters to landowners located within one-half of a mile of the project area and 100 emails to individuals and organizations who said they were interested in the project. We met with individuals and organizations who had questions about the project or wanted to share information about management on NFS lands. We received 72 written responses to this request for information.


10

Considering the trails proposal from the Gateway to Glacier Trail organization and input received from the public, we drafted a proposed action. On October 15, 2018, we sent letters announcing the release of the proposed action to approximately 270 individuals and landowners within one-tenth of a mile of proposed management activities within the project area. Emails were sent to 238 individuals and organizations. Approximately 140 individuals and organizations provided comments on the proposed action.

A public open house to provide additional information and answer questions about the project was held on October 30, 2018. Over 100 individuals attended the open house. Following the open house, various landowners, communities, and homeowners associations requested follow-up meetings with the district. We met with landowners interested in discussing access and management around their property and user groups asking for additional recreational opportunities within the Crystal Cedar project area.

Using the comments from the public, other agencies, and organizations, the interdisciplinary team identified several issues regarding the effects of the proposed action. Main issues of concern include that potential trails could facilitate trespass onto private property and potential effects of units 119 and 119a. In addition, public comments expressed desire for additional acres of vegetation treatment near private land to reduce fuel loading; interest in building accessible trails for handcycles; and modification of trail locations to improve user experience (see the updated environmental assessment pp. 8-9 for how the interdisciplinary team addressed these issues).

Some public comments were considered but not analyzed in detail, including changes to over-snow use and the addition of more trails. The rationale for not analyzing these alternatives in detail is expressed on pp. 9-10 of the updated environmental assessment and is addressed above in this decision notice.

On June 5, 2019, we released the Crystal Cedar Environmental Assessment and initiated a 30-day comment period. We received approximately 150 comments on the environmental assessment and made site visits to the project area to discuss site-specific activities with members of the public. We heard both support for the project and concerns about the potential effects of proposed activities. See appendix B of the draft decision notice for response to comments received on the June 2019 environmental assessment.

An updated environmental assessment was released in November 2019. The updated environmental assessment was prepared to clarify information and correct errors identified in the June 2019 environmental assessment. A summary of updates can be found in the updated environmental assessment (p. 1).

Objection period On November 14, 2019, we published a legal notice in the newspaper of record, the Daily Inter Lake, initiating a forty-five day administrative review (objection) period on the project’s November 2019 updated environmental assessment, draft decision notice, and finding of no significant impact, pursuant to 36 CFR 218. We received nine objections. One objection was from Montana Department of Natural Resources, and it was in support of the project. One objection was set aside from review because the individual did not submit timely and specific written comments regarding the proposed project during scoping or another designated opportunity for public comment (36 CFR 218.10).

Objections and objection responses can be found on the project Web site.


11

A panel was convened to review the objections, environmental assessment, draft decision notice, finding of no significant impact, and the project record. On February 12, 2020, the reviewing officer, Deputy Regional Forester Keith Lannom, determined the Project is in compliance with all applicable laws and the forest plan, and granted permission to sign the final decision (project file exhibit Y-11).

Five objections were received from individuals (Cindy Weaver, Arne Boveng, Michael and Susan Sherman, John Gangemi, and Daniel Savage) who objected to the Crystal Cedar Project because it did not include groomed Nordic trails in the project. The reviewing officer concluded that the responsible official complied with NEPA and Forest Service regulations by offering opportunities for public involvement and considering comments received. More discussion on the rationale for not including groomed Nordic trails in the Crystal Cedar Project can be found under the other alternatives considered section above; in appendix B. response to comments of the draft decision notice; and in the updated environmental assessment (pp. 9-10). These objections can be found in the project file (exhibits Y-1, Y-2, Y-4, Y-5, Y-6, and Y-8). The objection response can be found in the project file (exhibits Y-11 and Y-13).

One objection was received from Swan View Coalition (lead objector), Friends of the Wild Swan, and Brian Peck (project file exhibit Y-3) regarding human-bear conflict and whether the responsible official adequately incorporated the Board of Review Report and Recommendations (project file exhibits R-11 and R-12). The reviewing officer concluded that it was considered and addressed the recommendations of the Interagency Board of Review through project design and design features. Design feature 74 was modified to ensure trails will be constructed to limit the risk of bear-human conflict and that information on how to avoid and respond to bear-human encounters will be posted at trailheads (see appendix A of this decision notice).

One objection was received from landowners who live adjacent to the Crystal Cedar project area (Sarah Jones (lead objector) and Josh Gleason). The objection focused on soil and water effects. The reviewing officer concluded that the responsible official adequately addressed objectors’ concerns and thoroughly analyzed the effects of project activities on water; adequately responded to the objectors’ comments in the draft decision notice; adequately analyzed the effects of building roads; and adequately analyzed a range of alternatives in compliance with NEPA and Forest Service guidance.

This objection review process included a review of the aquatics analysis. The review confirmed temporary road E is situated over 200 meters from the objectors’ spring development (project file exhibit L-27). As was described in the draft decision notice, appendix B. response to comments, Kahklen and Moll (1999) found that measurable effects of a road on groundwater could only be observed 5-10 meters beyond a road. Therefore, effects to groundwater flow patterns occurring from use of temporary road E would not extend to the spring source. Project file exhibit L-27 displays proposed temporary road E on National Forest System lands, relative to roads and spring development on private property.

Finding of No Significant Impact The following is a summary of the project analyses to determine significance, as defined by the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1508.27) and Forest Service Handbook 1909.15_05. The significance of environmental impacts must be considered in terms of context and intensity. The significance of an action must be analyzed in the context of effects occurring


12

on a local, regional, or global scale and the affected interests. Intensity refers to the severity of impact.

Context For the proposed action and no-action alternative, the context of the environmental effects is based on the environmental analysis in the environmental assessment.

Context means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts (i.e. local regional, worldwide), and over short and long time frames. For site‐specific actions, significance usually depends upon the effects in the local rather than in the world as a whole. Both short- and long‐term effects are relevant (40 CFR 1508.27).

The effects of the proposed action are limited in context. These activities occur within a project area 27,249 acres in size, when compared to the four million acres of the Flathead National Forest. The project includes 3,722 acres of vegetation management and construction of approximately 25 miles of trails on National Forest System lands. Trail construction will occur within management area 7 (focused recreation), as defined by the forest plan. Project effects are limited in duration and local in nature. Significant impacts to regional or national resources are not likely.

On the Flathead National Forest, elsewhere across the Northern Region, and the National Forest System as a whole, similar projects occurred to address similar purposes. In this regard, this project will be a continuation of on‐going efforts. Short‐term adverse effects will be avoided as much as possible through implementation of the standards and guidelines in the forest plan, best management practices, and the project-specific design features (appendix A of this decision notice).

The design features reduce adverse impacts to the extent that such impacts are almost undetectable and immeasurable, even at the local level. Design features for the Crystal Cedar Project include, but are not limited to the following:

• Timing limitations on in-stream activities to protect westslope cutthroat trout;

• Rehabilitation of all temporary roads following project activities;

• Protection of plant species of conservation concern during project implementation;

• Required cleaning of equipment and reseeding of disturbed areas with native seed mix to reduce the spread of non‐native invasive plant species;

• Retention of prescribed types of snags, recruitment snags and downed wood to protect wildlife habitat components and soil productivity;

• Retention of full-crowned trees in the overstory of select vegetation treatment units to provide snow intercept cover within elk or mule deer winter range;

• Restrictions on new openings in riparian management zones to provide wildlife habitat structural diversity, connectivity, and cover;

• Restriction on activities during spring time period for grizzly bears;

• Restrictions on equipment and timing within some vegetation treatment units to minimize potential detrimental soil disturbance; and


13

• Requirements for trail design and information posted at trailheads to reduce potential for bear-human conflict.

All of the project design features can be found in appendix A. details of the selected alternative in this decision notice.

Intensity Intensity is a measure of the severity, extent, or quantity of effects, and is based on information from the effects analysis of the environmental assessment and the references in the project record. The effects of this project have been considered with an analysis that is responsive to concerns and issues raised by the public. The agency has taken a hard look at the environmental effects using relevant scientific information and knowledge of site-specific conditions gained from field visits. My finding of no significant impact is based on the context of the project and intensity of effects using the ten factors identified in 40 CFR 1508.27(b).

1) Impacts may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency believes that on the balance the effects will be beneficial.

Adverse and beneficial impacts were assessed and were not found to be significant. The analysis considered the direct and indirect effects of the proposed action, as well as the cumulative effect of past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable activities (see appendix B of the environmental assessment). The specific direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed action are not significant and this action does not rely on beneficial effects to override any adverse environmental effects. Adverse and beneficial impacts, as documented in the updated environmental assessment, include:

“Implementation of the proposed action would improve the diversity and resilience of forest vegetative communities and associated wildlife habitat. Treatments will also reduce forest density, contributing to the fuels reduction objective of the project” (p. 21).

“Through planting and natural regeneration of regeneration harvest units, species composition will be improved and diversified. Intermediate treatments will also contribute to improved species composition through preferred leave tree selection” (p. 21).

“Existing lynx feeding habitat would not be affected by vegetation management included in the proposed action... Proposed vegetation treatment would convert 153 acres of ‘other’ habitat (potential denning habitat) to the early stand initiation structural stage. The proposed action would retain a mosaic of forest habitats for lynx to travel and forage throughout lynx habitat in the Teakettle LAU” (p. 39).

“There would be temporary changes to access conditions during implementation of proposed activities, including a 9 percent increase in open motorized route density (OMRD) and a 2 percent increase in total motorized route density (TMRD), if all roads were being used to implement activities at the same time. Access conditions would be restored to pre-project levels within one year after completion of the project in order to reduce the duration of grizzly bear displacement or disturbance (FW-GDL-IFS-01). The proposed action would retain a mosaic of forest habitats for grizzly bears to travel and forage throughout the subunit” (p. 51).

“Recreational improvements are proposed in areas known to receive seasonal use by bears due to high quality forage, therefore the likelihood of a human-bear conflict is moderate” (p. 51).


14

“Implementation of the proposed action (or no-action alternative) either individually or cumulatively would not alter the current finding for watershed condition framework (class 1-functioning properly), would not impair water quality beneficial uses, and has no effect on listed or proposed threatened and endangered species or their habitats” (pp. 70-71).

“Increased sediment delivery associated with AOP replacement, new road construction, increased traffic levels during haul, and BMP application are anticipated to be short term (less than 3 years)” (p. 79).

“Water quality reductions or measurable increases in sediment delivery, and associated nutrients, would not reach the Flathead River system due to the spatial distribution of potential sediment sources, scale of predicted sediment delivery, and local hydro-geologic setting (e.g. hydrologic sinks, high permeability surface geology, discontinuous nature of surface water features)” (p. 79).

“The wetland/riparian habitat group would have short-term impacts from ground disturbing activities in the RMZs until vegetation recovers. Road construction, reconstruction, and maintenance have the potential of weed introduction and spread into the wetland/riparian habitat group” (p. 80).

“The proposed action would have a limited risk of introducing new weed species into the project area. However, it would have a high risk of spread throughout the project area due to the number of existing weed infestations in the project area, the amount of potential soil disturbance, the existing roads, the proposed recreation, the amount of private land, the timing of activities, and the use of equipment in those areas moving from site to site without cleaning between sites” (p. 86).

“Soil function and long-term productivity would be maintained by minimizing cumulative detrimental soil conditions in proposed activity areas” (p. 96).

“The new nonmotorized trail system would provide additional and easier access for hunters and berry pickers. As use patterns change in the area to include additional trails development and trailheads, these developments may also indirectly affect forest users such as hunters and berry pickers if recreational use of the area increases along trails. These effects to dispersed use are consistent with the roaded natural summer ROS settings for both focused recreation areas, which supports dispersed recreational experiences with higher concentrations of use, user comfort, and social interactions.” (p. 111)

Appendix A of this decision notice include design features that were developed by the interdisciplinary team to address public concerns and avoid or reduce potential environmental impacts.

2) The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety.

The proposed action is not expected to significantly affect public health or safety. The project provides for public health and safety in various ways, including but not limited to:

• The Flathead National Forest participates in the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group, which regulates prescribed burns within the state of Montana (project file exhibit J-4).

• Vegetation treatments are designed to result in less intense fire behavior in the project area where there are numerous residences and forest visitors. This will also facilitate safe wildland fire operations in the event of a wildland fire event (see the effects to fire and fuels section of the updated environmental assessment).


15

• To protect the safety of the public using the area, contractors will be required to post signs warning the public of activities and traffic associated with the treatments (appendix A. details of the selected alternative).

• Use of herbicides for the treatment of invasive plants would be consistent with label directions and with the strategy outlined in the Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact (USDA 2001).

• Project activities may result in a short-term increase in sediment delivery but are not anticipated to be measurable beyond the reach scale and surface diversion for private water rights do not exist within the affected downstream zone (appendix B of the draft decision notice, response to comments – Aquatics).

• Project design features require that trails will be constructed to limit the risk of bear-human conflict by avoiding areas of dense vegetation, such as that found in riparian habitat, maintaining sight distances, and limiting speed of travel. In addition, information on how to avoid and respond to bear-human encounters will be posted at trailheads (project design feature 74).

I believe that this decision protects public health and safety through project design and design features (appendix A. Details of the selected alternative).

3) Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas.

The project area does not include parklands or prime farmlands.

There are four vegetation management units (units 121, 123, 130, and 131) within the North Fork and Middle Fork Flathead River recreation river segments. Management activities will have no effect to the outstandingly remarkable values identified for these segments of river (project file exhibit M-6).

Cultural resources having scientific, cultural, or social values will be preserved and protected for their cultural importance and sites identified under the National Historic Preservation Act would be inventoried, protected, and, if warranted, nominated to the National Register of Historic Places (FW-STD-CR-01). All proposed ground disturbing activities can pose a potential threat to cultural resources. However, with the implementation of design features, the proposed action will result in no negative impacts to cultural resource values (see appendix A of this decision notice for design features, p. 117 of the updated EA for a summary of the cultural resources analysis, and project file exhibit N-4 for an expanded analysis of effects to cultural resources).

Vegetation treatments within portions of riparian management zones will occur to promote growth of large trees and increase the diversity of forest age classes, species composition, and forest density. Only hand removal of vegetation will occur within the mapped inner RMZ (FW-STD-RMZ-06) and no treatment will occur within fen RMZs. The forest plan FEIS analysis and modeling incorporated treatments in RMZs. Complying with plan components related to treatments will protect values and maintain habitat conditions for associated plant, animal, and aquatic species. Vegetation treatments proposed in RMZs would not have measurable effects to sediment delivery (project file exhibit L-16 and updated EA p.79).


16

The updated EA displays the effects to resources and different habitat types found in the project area. This analysis determines that the activities included in the proposed action will not have significant effects to habitats used by threatened species such as Canada lynx or grizzly bears. Activities will maintain habitat connectivity through the project area for species like wolverines, Canada lynx, and grizzly bears. Project design features maintain winter range components for forest ungulates and important habitat components for other wildlife and plant species. I find that the selected alternative will not significantly affect ecologically critical areas.

4) The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial.

The term “controversial” in this context refers to cases where substantial scientific dispute exits as to the size, nature, or effects of a major Federal action on some human environmental factor, rather than to public opposition of a proposed action or alternative.

Recently, there has been public debate about recreation, specifically use of mountain bikes, in grizzly bear country. Some of the trails are proposed in areas known to receive seasonal use by bears due to high quality forage. The potential for a human‐bear conflict may increase, particularly along trails that pass through huckleberry patches or riparian habitats or that cross loud streams. However, project design features maintain consistency with FW-GDL-IFS-15 to decrease the potential for human-bear conflict.

Based on the limited context of the project, I do not find any highly controversial effects to the human environment.

5) The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks.

Based on my review of the project, I find the possible effects on the human environment that are uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks are minimal or non-existent and therefore not significant.

The Crystal Cedar Project is similar to other projects conducted across the Flathead National Forest. Analysis of this project considered the effects of past projects as a frame of reference in conjunction with scientifically accepted analytical techniques, available information and best professional experience and judgement to estimate effects to the human environment.

6) The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration.

The Crystal Cedar Project represents a site-specific project that does not set precedence for future actions or present a decision in principle about future considerations. Any proposed future project must be evaluated on its own merits and effects. Management actions are compatible with the forest plan and the capabilities of the land, and I find that this project is not expected to set precedent for future actions.

7) Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts.


17

The cumulative effects of past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable activities were considered and are summarized in each resource section. In order to have cumulative effects, the effects of activities must overlap in space and time; therefore, each resource may have a different set of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions associated with it. Appendix B of the updated environmental assessment provides a summary of the actions considered in the cumulative effects analyses for the Crystal Cedar Project. Each action was evaluated by the appropriate resource specialist to determine whether it would have a cumulative impact on the resource (see cumulative effects worksheets by resource area in the project file and each resource section’s cumulative effects analysis in the environmental assessment). I find that cumulatively this project will not have significant impacts.

8) The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant cultural or historical resources.

With the implementation of design features, the proposed action will result in no negative impacts to cultural resource values (see appendix A of this decision notice for design features, p. 117 of the environmental assessment for a summary of the cultural resources analysis, and project file exhibit N-4 for an expanded analysis of effects to cultural resources). A field inventory was completed for the project and a recommendation was made to the state historic preservation office that “no historic properties are affected.” The Section 106 process of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 was completed, and Montana State Historic Preservation Office concurs that project activities will have no effect on historic properties (project file exhibit N-5).

9) The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act.

There are no documented occurrences for water howellia or Spalding’s catchfly on the Glacier View Ranger District in either the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP) rare plants database or the NRM database.

Canada lynx and Canada lynx critical habitat

The biological assessment prepared for the Crystal Cedar Project found that there would be a may affect, not likely to adversely affect determination for both Canada lynx and Canada lynx critical habitat. These determinations were made because project activities would temporarily decrease lynx denning habitat by 153 acres and 355 acres of “other” lynx habitat would be affected by vegetation management activities. Landscape-level travel connections would be maintained and a mosaic of stand conditions would persist to allow for lynx travel corridors within the project LAU. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) found that “once those acres begin to regenerate, we expect snowshoe hare habitat to increase, and thus increase lynx foraging opportunities.” They concluded that the overall effects to Canada lynx and Canada lynx critical habitat as a result of the implementation of the Crystal Cedar Project would be insignificant and discountable (project file exhibit G-13).

Grizzly bears

The biological assessment prepared for the Crystal Cedar Project found that there would be a may affect, likely to adversely affect determination for grizzly bears. This determination was


18

made because motorized access parameters would be temporarily affected by project activities in the Cedar Teakettle bear management subunit, which does not currently meet research benchmarks. The proposed activities would temporarily reduce hiding cover, but cover would remain well distributed for travel and security during and after project implementation. The USFWS found that “other than existing access conditions, no activities under the proposed action are likely to adversely affect grizzly bears” (project file exhibit G-13). They also state that the adverse effects related to the baseline condition were adequately analyzed in the biological opinion for the 2018 Forest Plan (project file exhibit R-7) and that the proposed activities conform to the incidental take statement in that opinion.

Wolverine

In 2014, Forest Service, Region 1 prepared a programmatic biological assessment for wolverine for a variety of projects routinely conducted on NFS lands (project file exhibit G-14) such as timber harvest, mechanical equipment use, roads and road maintenance, silvicultural activities, recreation management, forest products, prescribed fire, weed control, and administrative uses. The USFWS concurred with this finding and in 2016 determined that this concurrence was still valid (project file exhibit G-14). In 2017, the USFWS also concurred with the conclusion of no jeopardy for the Flathead National Forest’s forest plan due to plan components that maintain, improve, and restore ecological conditions within the plan area to contribute to conservation of the wolverine by reducing the risk of future threats, including consideration of potential future changes in climate. See the FEIS of the forest plan (volume 2 pp. 250-262), its biological assessment (project file exhibit R-6), the concurrence with no jeopardy in its biological opinion (project file exhibit R-7), and the record of decision for the forest plan (USDA Forest Service 2018a, pp. 41 and 54).

Because wolverines are proposed to be listed under the Endangered Species Act and are present in the project area, a determination was made that the Crystal Cedar Project would not jeopardize the continued existence of the wolverine. This determination was based on an analysis of effects to natal denning security, prey base, and overall habitat security as well as cumulative effects (updated environmental assessment, pp. 59-62 and project file exhibit G-31). This analysis of effects fulfills the biological assessment requirement for wolverine and supports the determination of no jeopardy for this proposed species.

Bull trout and bull trout critical habitat

Because measurable effects to water quality, aquatic habitat, and channel morphology are not anticipated in designated bull trout critical habitat in the Flathead River, and bull trout are not present in affected stream reaches, effects to the species or their habitat are not anticipated (p. 79, project file exhibit L-15).

I have found that while the activities included in this decision will affect some threatened species, the degree of these effects are not significant and are temporary in nature.

10) Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment.

The proposed action is consistent with all applicable federal, state, and local laws or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. Applicable laws and regulations


19

are considered in the environmental assessment and compliance is described in the Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations section of this decision notice.

Conclusion After considering the environmental effects described in the updated environmental assessment, I have determined that the proposed action will not have significant effects on the quality of the human environment considering the context and intensity of impacts (40 CFR 1508.27). Thus, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared.

Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations

National Forest Management Act (NFMA)

Consistency with Forest Plan Desired Conditions and Objectives NFMA requires the development, maintenance, amendment, and revision of land management plans (forest plans) for each unit of the National Forest System. These plans provide for multiple use and sustained yield of renewable resources in accordance with the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 and include coordination of outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife and fish, and wilderness. Subject to valid existing rights, all project and activities authorized by the Forest Service after approval of the forest plan must be consistent with the applicable plan components (16 USC 1604).

On April 9, 2012, the Department of Agriculture issued a final planning rule for National Forest System land management planning ((2012 Planning Rule) [77 FR 68 [21162-21276]]). Except for the plan consistency requirements in 36 CFR 219.15, none of the requirements of the 2012 Planning Rule apply to projects or activities (36 CFR 219.2(c)). On December 24, 2018, the forest supervisor signed the record of decision for the Flathead National Forest’s revised forest plan utilizing the 2012 Planning Rule regulations. This plan became effective 30 days later and, per the record of decision, all project or activity approval documents after the effective date must describe how the project or activity is consistent with the forest plan by the criteria listed at 36 CFR 219.15(d). Page 3 of the forest plan provides additional direction for project and activity plan component consistency.

The forest plan establishes management direction for the Flathead National Forest. This management direction is achieved through the establishment of forestwide desired conditions, objectives, standards, and guidelines. Additional desired conditions and accompanying standards and guidelines have been established for specific management areas (MAs) and geographic areas (GAs) across the forest. Project implementation consistent with this direction is the process in which desired conditions described by the forest plan are achieved. The following sections show how my decision meets the requirements at 16 USC 1604.

Desired conditions and objectives No part of the Crystal Cedar Project forecloses the opportunity to achieve any other forest plan desired conditions or objectives over the long term. The Crystal Cedar Project contributes to making progress in achieving the following forest plan desired conditions and contributes to meeting several forest plan objectives.


20

Recreation: FW-DC-IFS-08, FW-DC-P&C-11, FW-DC-SREC-06, FW-DC-S&E-03, FW-DC-WL-03, MA7-DC-01, GA-NF-MA7-Crystal-Cedar-DC-01, GA-NF-MA7-Cedar Flats-OHV-DC-01

Fire and Fuels: FW-DC-FIRE-02

Terrestrial ecosystems and vegetation: FW-DC-RMZ-06, FW-DC-TE&V-01, FW-DC-TE&V-02, FW-DC-TE&V-07, FW-DC-TE&V-08, FW-DC-TE&V-09, FW-DC-TE&V-10, FW-DC-TE&V-11, FW-DC-TE&V-12, FW-DC-TE&V-13, FW-DC-TE&V-15, FW-DC-TE&V-16, FW-DC-TE&V-17, FW-DC-TE&V-19

Wildlife: FW-DC-WL-01, FW-DC-WL-02, FW-DC-WL DIV-01, GA-NF-DC-06

Timber: FW-DC-TIMB-01, FW-DC-TIMB-02, FW-DC-TIMB-07, FW-DC-OFP-03

These desired conditions are discussed in the purpose and need section of the updated environmental assessment and in the decision rationale section of this decision notice. The Crystal Cedar Project will contribute to the following forest plan objectives:

GA-NF-OBJ-02: Complete one to three trails that provide for mountain bike opportunities in the Whitefish Range vicinity.

My decision approves approximately 24 miles of trails open to mountain biking in the Whitefish Range. See appendix A. details of the selected alternative and map 2 Crystal Cedar selected alternative map for details and maps of the trails and their managed uses.

FW-OBJ-TE&V-01: Vegetation management treatments (e.g., timber harvest, planned ignitions, thinning, planting) occur on 62,000 to 174,000 acres of the Forest to maintain or move towards achieving desired conditions for coniferous forest types and associated wildlife species, and for other resources.

Vegetation management treatments in this decision would contribute towards achievement of this objective. The vegetation management treatments are designed to work towards obtaining desired conditions for terrestrial ecosystems and vegetation listed above in the decision rationale. All 3,722 acres of vegetation treatments would contribute to this objective.

FW-OBJ-FIRE-01: Move towards or maintain the desired conditions for fuel management by treatment (such as mechanical or prescribed fire) of forest vegetation on approximately 50,000 to 75,000 acres, utilizing all available management opportunities that contribute to reducing fire impacts to private property and NFS infrastructure, with an emphasis on the wildland-urban interface.

Vegetation management treatments in this decision would contribute towards achievement of this objective. Reducing fire impacts to private land was considered during the design of all of the vegetation management treatments. Of the 3,722 acres of vegetation treatments, approximately all but 44 acres would occur in the WUI; (see map 1 Crystal Cedar selected alternative) however, all treatments will reduce fire impacts.

Consistency with forest plan standards, guidelines, and suitability The project file includes a complete evaluation of forestwide, management area, and geographic area standards and guidelines by resource. All activities associated with the Crystal Cedar Project


21

are consistent with the forest plan (project file exhibit R-1). The Crystal Cedar Project complies with all applicable standards and is designed to meet the purpose of all relevant guidelines. Below we have highlighted a few standards and guidelines that were related to public comment received.

Standards

FW-STD-RMZ-01 The entire width of the riparian management zones shall be delineated as follows.

Category 1 Fish-bearing streams: Riparian management zones consist of the stream and the area on both sides of the stream extending from the edges of the active channel to the top of the inner gorge, or to the outer edges of the 100-year floodplain, or to the outer edges of riparian vegetation, or to a distance equal to the height of two site-potential trees, or 300 feet slope distance (600 feet total, which includes both sides of the stream channel), whichever is greatest.

Category 2 Permanently flowing non-fish-bearing streams: Riparian management zones consist of the stream and the area on both sides of the stream extending from the edges of the active channel to the top of the inner gorge, or to the outer edges of the 100-year floodplain, or to the outer edges of the riparian vegetation, or to a distance equal to the height of one site-potential tree, or 150 feet slope distance (300 feet total, which includes both sides of the stream channel), whichever is greatest.

Category 3 Seasonally flowing or intermittent streams and lands identified as potentially unstable or landslide prone: This category includes features with high variability in size and site-specific characteristics. At a minimum, the riparian management zone must include (1) the intermittent stream channel and the area to the top of the inner gorge; (2) the intermittent stream channel or wetland and the area to the outer edges of the riparian vegetation; (3) the area from the edges of the stream channel, wetland, or landslide-prone terrain to a distance equal to the height of one site-potential tree or 100 feet slope distance (200 feet total, which includes both sides of the stream channel), whichever is greatest; or (4) the extent of unstable and potentially unstable areas (including earthflows).

Category 4a Ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands greater than 0.5 acre and all sizes of howellia ponds and fens/peatlands: Riparian management zones consist of the body of water or wetland and the area to the outer edges of the riparian vegetation; or to the extent of the seasonally saturated soil; or to the distance of the height of one site-potential tree; or 300 feet slope distance from the edge of the maximum pool elevation of constructed ponds and reservoirs or from the edge of the wetland, pond, or lake—whichever is greatest. For management direction related to water howellia, refer to the following plan components: FW-DC-PLANT-01 and 02, FW-GDL-PLANT-01, 02, and 03, FW-DC-NNIP-01, MA3b-Special Area-DC-04, and GA-SV-DC-01 and 02.

Category 4b Ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands less than 0.5 acre (except howellia ponds and fens/peatlands; see category 4a): Riparian management zones consist of the body of water or wetland and the area to the outer edges of the riparian vegetation; or to the extent of the seasonally saturated soil; or to the distance of the height of one site-potential tree; or 100 feet slope distance from the edge of the maximum pool elevation of constructed ponds and reservoirs or from the edge of the wetland, pond, or lake—whichever is greatest.

The riparian management zone is divided into two areas called the inner and outer riparian management zones. Management direction may differ in these two zones. The inner riparian management zones are defined as follows:


22

For category 1 and 2 streams, the width of the inner riparian management zone shall be a minimum of 150 feet on each side of the stream.

For category 3 streams where side slopes are greater than 35 percent, the width of the inner riparian management zone shall be a minimum of 100 feet on each side of the stream or to the top of the inner gorge slope break, whichever is greater. Exceptions are allowed if the slope within the 100 foot riparian management zone decreases to 15% or less for a distance of at least 30 feet (forming a bench). The boundary of the inner riparian management zone may then be located at the toe of the bench. However, under no circumstance shall the inner riparian management zone be less than 50 feet on each side of the stream. See appendix C for a diagram illustrating this exception.

For category 3 streams where side slopes are less than 35 percent, the inner riparian management zone shall be a minimum of 50 feet on each side of the stream.

For category 4a and 4b ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands, the width of the inner riparian management zone shall be a minimum of 50 feet except for peatlands, fens, and bogs, where the minimum width is 300 feet.

In all categories the width of the inner riparian management zone in the descriptions above can be increased to protect sensitive resources. If an already established road is located within the riparian management zone, a site-specific determination shall be made as to the width of the inner riparian management zone. The portion of the riparian management zone that lies below the road may become the inner riparian management zone, and the portion above the road would become the outer riparian management zone.

The updated EA discusses the proposed vegetation treatments within the riparian management zone on pp. 14-15. Project design feature 01 specifies how vegetation treatments and tree removal will be in compliance with this standard for riparian management zones. Compliance with the RMZ standards is also discussed in aquatic section appendix B. response to comments of the draft decision notice. Project activities will be in compliance with FW-STD-RMZ-01.

FW-STD-SOIL-01 Vegetation management activities do not create detrimental soil conditions on more than 15 percent of an activity area. In activity areas where less than 15 percent detrimental soil conditions exist from prior activities, the cumulative detrimental effect of the current condition and proposed activity must not exceed 15 percent following project implementation and restoration. In areas where more than 15 percent detrimental soil conditions exist from prior activities, the effects from project implementation and restoration must address currently impaired soil functions to improve the long-term soil condition.

The updated EA explains the effects to soils resources on pp. 99-105 and displays the anticipated detrimental soils disturbance in Table 56. The analysis determines that the proposed activities will meet FW-STD-SOIL-01.

FW-STD-SOIL-03 Soil function shall be restored on temporary roads (and decommissioned road prisms used as temporary roads) when management activities that use these roads are completed. Restoration treatments shall be based on site characteristics and methods that have been demonstrated to measurably improve soil productivity.

Project design feature 41 identifies what types of site appropriate techniques will be used for rehabilitating temporary roads following use (see appendix A. details of the selected alternative) to meet FW-STD-SOIL-03.


23

FW-STD-IFS-02 In each bear management subunit within the NCDE primary conservation area, there shall be no net decrease to the baseline (see glossary) for secure core and no net increase to the baseline open motorized route density or total motorized route density on National Forest System lands during the non-denning season (see glossary). The following conditions are not considered a net increase/decrease from the baseline: (see Forest Plan p.65)

FW-STD-IFS-03 In each bear management subunit within the NCDE primary conservation area, temporary changes in the open motorized route density, total motorized route density, and secure core shall be allowed for projects (as defined by “project (in grizzly bear habitat in the NCDE)” in the glossary).

The 10-year running average for open motorized route density, total motorized route density, and secure core numbers shall not exceed the following limits per bear management subunit:

• 5 percent temporary increase in open motorized route density in each subunit (i.e., open motorized route density baseline plus 5 percent);

• 3 percent temporary increase in total motorized route density in each subunit (i.e., total motorized route density baseline plus 3 percent);

• 2 percent temporary decrease in secure core in each subunit (i.e., secure core baseline minus 2 percent).

The updated EA discusses temporary changes to access conditions as a result of project activities on pp. 50-59 and shows that there will be no net increase in open motorized density, total motorized density, or decrease in security core post project. Project design features 70-73 also address project requirements for access management in the project area. The project activities are in compliance with FW-STD-WL-03, FW-STD-IFS-02, and FW-STD-IFS-03.

FW-STD-WL-04 The Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction in appendix A, as modified by the Flathead National Forest’s forest plan record of decision, shall be applied.

The updated EA discusses compliance with the Northern Rockies Lynx Management direction on pp. 39-45 and displays the potential effects of the proposed activities to “other” lynx habitat, which does not have a dense understory and provide hare habitat. The project activities are in compliance with the NRLMD and FW-STD-WL-04.

GA-NF-STD-01 Within timber harvest areas, snags or live replacement trees shall be retained at or above the minimum levels displayed in table 42. All snags of western larch, ponderosa pine, and black cottonwood trees greater than 20 inches d.b.h. shall be retained. If sufficient snags to meet the minimum levels in each column of table 42 are not present, live replacement trees shall be substituted for each snag. Live replacement trees shall be of the largest size present above 15 inches d.b.h., decayed or decadent trees if present, and the following species if present: western larch, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, cottonwood, aspen, birch, or western redcedar. In regeneration harvest units, suitable replacement trees include those that would not cause unacceptable impacts to the conifer tree regeneration (e.g., dwarf mistletoe infection or potential dysgenic seed source).


24

Project design features 46 specifies the snags and live reserve trees that should be left in vegetation management units to meet GA-NF-01. Project design features 44 and 45 ensure that project activities meet FW-GDL-TE&V-06

MA2-STD-02 Designated rivers must be managed to protect the free-flowing character, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable values for which they were designated.

Project design feature 53 and 57 address the scenic remarkable value identified in the wild and scenic river corridor and ensure that vegetation management will meet MA2-STD-02.

Guidelines

FW-GDL-RMZ-09 If new openings are created in riparian management zones through even-aged regeneration harvest (see glossary) or fuel reduction activities, each created opening’s distance to cover (see glossary) should not exceed 350 feet to provide wildlife habitat structural diversity, connectivity, and cover.

Project design feature 61 addresses this guideline.

FW-GDL-RMZ-10 If harvest activities occur within riparian management zones, all snags greater than or equal to 12 inches d.b.h. should be retained within the harvest area to contribute towards more diverse forest structure and desired habitat conditions by providing higher snag and downed wood densities (once the snags fall) as compared to areas outside riparian management zones. Exceptions to this guideline and development of an alternative snag prescription may be considered where there are issues of human health and safety (i.e., developed recreation sites, sites adjacent to landings) or where a decreased amount of wildland fuels is desired to protect communities and community assets (i.e., within the wildland-urban interface). Due to the high density and variability in snags and landscape conditions created by wildfire, exceptions and alternative prescriptions may also be considered in areas burned by stand-replacing fire based on a site-specific analysis.

Project design feature 62 addresses this guideline.

FW-GDL-SOIL-04 To maintain organic matter for soil function, vegetation management activities should conserve coarse woody debris at levels described in FW-DC-TE&V-17 and FW-GDL-TE&V-08 in the Vegetation and Terrestrial Ecosystems section. Management activities should either retain forest floor at half the current thickness or no less than 1 centimeter thick on average across activity areas.

Project design features 48, 49, and 50 ensure retention of down woody debris.

FW-GDL-TE&V-01 Within the NCDE primary conservation area, measures to reduce the risk of disturbance to the grizzly bear population should be incorporated into vegetation and fuels project design criteria, which vary on a site-specific basis (e.g., some activities should be restricted in spring habitat during the spring time period; areas with low levels of human activity should be provided adjacent to areas with high levels of disturbance). Note: Management activities such as pre-commercial thinning, burning, weed spraying, and implementation of road best management practices may need to be completed during the spring time period in order to meet resource objectives (especially if needed to prevent resource damage), in which case other measures should be used to reduce the risk of disturbance (e.g., limiting the duration of the activity or limiting the use of closed roads).


25

Project design feature 66 requires spring habitat timing restrictions.

FW-GDL-TE&V-06 To increase the patch size of old-growth forest in the future, if managing vegetation within 300 feet of existing old-growth forest, treatment prescriptions that would promote the development of old-growth forest in the future should be considered. At a minimum, the following structural and composition components associated with old-growth forest should be retained if present within at least 300 feet of the old-growth forest patch:

• larger live trees (e.g., greater than 17 inches d.b.h.) of species and condition that will persist over time (such as western larch, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir) and not cause unacceptable impacts to future stand conditions (e.g., dwarf mistletoe infection or potential dysgenic seed source);

• large downed wood (greater than 9 inches diameter); and/or

• snags and decayed, decadent trees greater than 15 inches d.b.h.

Exceptions to this guideline may occur to protect human health and safety and within portions of the wildland-urban interface where decreased fuels are determined necessary to protect values at risk.

Project design features 44, 45, and 50 ensure that project activities meet FW-GDL-TE&V-06.

FW-GDL-PLANT DIV-02 To avoid adverse impacts to plant species of conservation concern, heavy, ground-based equipment should not be used in areas with known plant species of conservation concern populations.

Project design features 21, 22, and 23 will meet FW-GDL-PLANT DIV-02.

FW-GDL-WL DIV-01 Vegetation management activities should maintain, where present, an overstory canopy of full-crowned trees to provide snow intercept cover in key winter big game habitats, determined in cooperation with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP). Since the amount of canopy needed varies on a site-specific basis according to factors such as tree species, aspect, or elevation, and changes over time, specific areas and prescriptions for management activities should be identified at the project level.

Project design features 58 and 78 will meet FW-GDL-WL DIV-01

FW-GDL-WL DIV-05 To reduce the risk of disturbance, new projects or new special-use authorizations for activities that are known to disrupt the select species listed in table 15 should not occur in key habitats during key time periods (see table 15) unless they include strategies designed to mitigate new disturbance. Exceptions to this guideline may occur for public health and safety or emergency activities.

Project design features 67, 68, and 69 will meet the timing restrictions for wildlife species identified in FW-GDL-WL DIV-05.

FW-GDL-FIRE-05 To reduce the negative impacts of wildfires or improve fire control opportunities, treatments should be designed to remove or rearrange the material necessary to achieve at least one of the following outcomes: reduce flame length, rate of spread, or torching and crowning indices.


26

The updated EA discusses how vegetation management activities will result in decreased flame lengths and torching on pp. 91 and 93 to meet FW-GDL-FIRE-05.

FW-GDL-IFS-02 Within the NCDE primary conservation area, levels of secure core, open motorized route density, and total motorized route density should be restored to pre-project levels (as defined by “project (in grizzly bear habitat in the NCDE)” in the glossary) within one year after completion of the project in order to reduce the duration of grizzly bear displacement or disturbance due to project-related activities. Exceptions may be made where necessary to accommodate, for example,

• actions where existing rights preclude or constrain agency discretion (e.g., certain contracts, permits, leases);

• prescribed burning (including slash disposal), best management practices to protect water quality, or required reforestation activities; or

• emergency situations as defined by 36 CFR § 218.21.

If an extension to the one-year time limitation is made (e.g., to meet contractual obligations or to complete on-the-ground treatments), the reasons should be documented in writing prior to authorization of the extension.

Project design feature 71 ensures that the project meets FW-GDL-IFS-02

FW-GDL-IFS-015 When designing, constructing, or reconstructing system trails, information on how to avoid and respond to bear-human encounters should be posted at trailheads. In addition, site-specific trail design should include one or more methods to limit the risk of bear-human conflicts such as, but not limited to,

• locating trails outside of riparian management zones or avalanche chutes unless it is necessary to cross or to access an existing developed recreation site, and

• designing and/or maintaining trails to increase sight distance and/or to address speed of travel consistent with site-specific conditions for the managed use of the trail.

Project design feature 74 ensures that trail construction will implement measures to limit the risk of bear-human conflict.

Suitability Management areas (MAs) help clarify the general suitability of various parts of the Forest for different activities and management practices. Suitability is discussed further on p. 119 of the forest plan.

2a. Designated wild and scenic river The Crystal Cedar Project proposes four vegetation management units totaling 132 acres within the North Fork and Middle Fork Flathead River recreation river segments to reduce fuels, diversify vegetation, and reduce discernable edges between land ownerships. Although these lands are not suitable for timber production timber harvesting is allowed to achieve the desired vegetation conditions (MA2a-SUIT-02). Proposed management activities will have no effect to the outstandingly remarkable values identified for these segments of river (project file exhibit M-6).


27

6a. General forest low-intensity vegetation management The Crystal Cedar Project proposes approximately 27 acres of treatment in management area 6a. Approximately 7 acres of treatment will use hand treatments to reduce fuels and improve tree growth. Approximately 20 acres of commercial thinning will occur to remove conifers and release aspen in the remaining forest stand and reduce fuels near private property. Although MA6a is unsuitable for timber production, timber harvest to achieve desired vegetation conditions and other multiple-use purposes could occur.

6b. General forest medium-intensity vegetation management The Crystal Cedar Project proposes approximately 595 acres of treatment in MA6b, which is suitable for timber production. These treatments include approximately 343 acres of commercial harvest and 252 acres of noncommercial harvest. My decision approves 0.2 miles of road construction to reroute an existing road in MA6b which is suitable for road construction.

6c. General forest high-intensity vegetation management The Crystal Cedar Project proposes approximately 197 acres of treatment in MA6c, which is suitable for timber production. These treatments include approximately 79 acres of commercial harvest and 115 acres of noncommercial harvest.

7. Focused recreation area The Crystal Cedar Project proposes approximately 2,770 acres of treatment in MA7. All of the Cedar Flats Off-Highway Vehicle Focused Recreation Area is suitable for timber production and portions of the Crystal Cedar Focused Recreation Area are suitable for timber production (forest plan figure B-33). All of the vegetation management activities proposed in MA7 are occurring on lands suitable for timber production (see project file exhibit R-9). These treatments include approximately 1,858 acres of commercial harvest and 913 acres of noncommercial treatments. My decision also approves 0.9 miles of road construction in MA7 which is suitable for permanent road construction. My decision approves approximately 25 miles of new trail construction, all of which is located within MA7 areas with recreation opportunity spectrum roaded natural, which provides for a natural-appearing landscape that supports higher concentrations of use, user comfort, and social interactions with a well-defined road system.

Timber resource management-specific forest plan components Consistency with forest plan standards and guidelines assures the proposed vegetation management will be carried out in a manner consistent with the protection of soil, watershed, fish, wildlife, recreation, and esthetic resources, and the regeneration of the timber resource (16 USC 1604(g)(3)(F)(v)). In addition, the Project is specifically consistent with:

FW-DC-TIMB-03: In areas suitable for timber production, timber harvest, thinning, and planting have a primary role in achieving the desired vegetation conditions.

FW-DC-TIMB-05: In areas suitable for timber production, sanitation or salvage harvest may occur and contribute to the overall economic benefits of harvest while achieving desired conditions and management direction for other resources (e.g., wildlife habitat, snags) and providing for human safety along open roads and trails.

FW-DC-TIMB-06: On lands identified as not suitable for timber production but where timber harvesting is allowed to achieve multiple-use values, timber harvest contributes to achieving desired


28

conditions while providing economic and social services and benefits to people. Timber harvest on these lands occur to protect multiple-use values other than timber production, such as salvage, sanitation, public health, or safety.

Stands identified for harvest treatment in this decision were examined for suitability by a certified silviculturist, soil scientist, and other resource specialists. Timber harvest is located in five management areas. Management area 6b (general forest moderate intensity vegetation management), management area 6c and sections of management area 7 (focused recreation areas) are suitable for long-term timber production. The portions of management area 7 that have commercial harvest in the Crystal Cedar Project are suitable for timber production. Management area 2a and 6a are not suitable for timber production, but vegetation management is proposed in these areas to reduce fuels, diversify vegetation, and reduce the discernable edges between land ownership.

FW-STD-SOIL-02: Project-specific best management practices and design features shall be incorporated into land management activities as a principle mechanism for protecting soil resources.

FW-STD-SOIL-03: Soil function shall be restored on temporary roads when management activities that use these roads are completed. Restoration treatments shall be based on site characteristics and methods that have been demonstrated to measurably improve soil productivity.

FW-GDL-SOIL-01: Ground-based equipment for vegetation management should only operate on slopes less than 40 percent to protect soil quality. Exceptions will be considered only with site-specific analysis where soil, slope, and equipment are determined appropriate to maintain soil functions.

FW-GDL-SOIL-02: To maintain soil quality and stability, ground-disturbing management activities should not occur on landslide-prone areas.

FW-STD-WTR-02: Project-specific best management practices (including both Federal and State of Montana practices) shall be incorporated into project plans as a principle mechanism for controlling non-point pollution sources in order to meet soil and watershed desired conditions and to protect beneficial uses.

FW-STD-TIMB-01: Timber shall not be harvested on lands where soil, slope, or other watershed conditions may be irreversibly damaged, as identified in project-specific findings.

Design features include the application of BMPs to all harvest units and haul routes (project design feature 03). In addition, temporary road construction/reclamation will occur during dry conditions to allow effective implementation of BMPs to reduce or eliminate effects to water quality. Monitoring of BMPs will be incorporated into many different phases of the project. The sale administrator will review the location of all proposed temporary roads to assure compliance with BMPs. A sale administrator will visit each active cutting unit at a frequency necessary to assure compliance with the BMPs and the timber sale contract. Minor contract changes or contract modifications would be agreed upon and enacted, when necessary, to meet objectives and standards on the ground. No units with slopes greater than forty percent will be treated with ground-based equipment (project file exhibit K-3).


29

FW-STD-TIMB-02: Timber harvesting shall only be done when there is reasonable assurance of restocking within five years after final regeneration harvest. Restocking level is prescribed in a site-specific silvicultural prescription for a project treatment unit and is determined to be adequate depending on the objectives and desired conditions for the plan area. In some instances, such as when stands are treated to reduce fuel loadings, to create openings for scenic vistas, or to remove encroaching trees to meet desired vegetation or wildlife habitat conditions, it is acceptable not to restock or to restock at very low tree densities.

Previous regeneration harvests in the project area have been successfully stocked within five years. Forest Plan Monitoring Reports indicate that the Forest is consistently successful at regenerating stands after harvest in the desired timeframe and with the desired number and species of trees (project file exhibit H-15). The most appropriate method for site preparation and regeneration will be selected at the time the detailed prescription to assure regeneration.

FW-STD-TIMB-03: Silvicultural treatments shall not be selected based solely on their ability to provide the greatest dollar return.

Although timber harvest associated with this project will generate revenue, all treatments have been designed to meet project objectives, which include cost efficiency, but are not solely designed to generate revenue.

FW-GDL-SCN-02: To be consistent with the Forest’s scenic integrity objectives, deviations that are visible in some areas of the Forest should generally be subordinate to the surrounding landscape and should diminish over time.

All units meet or exceed scenic integrity objectives in the long term.

FW-STD-TIMB-04: Clearcutting shall be used as a harvest method only where it has been determined to be the optimum method, and other types of even-aged harvest shall be used only where determined to be appropriate. Determinations shall be based on site-specific conditions and the desired conditions for vegetation, wildlife habitat, scenery, and other resources.

Clearcutting was deemed the optimal regeneration method in unit 121 due to the lack of suitable leave trees. The stand consists of lodgepole approximately 90 years old, with a few individuals of desirable species. Even-aged methods are appropriate for this landscape, which has been shaped by fire, as have most of the Northern Rocky Mountain ecosystems. Mixed severity fire regimes dominate in the project area; fires that would burn both at low and high severity in a complex patch pattern across the landscape create the kind of stand structures and species compositions that also result from even-aged harvest methods.

Even-aged methods are appropriate for mature, even-aged stands originating from the Half Moon Fire of 1929 (project file exhibit J-2). Intermediate or uneven-aged regeneration treatments in the proposed even-age harvests would be ineffective due to the species composition and age of the stands. Mature lodgepole pine is very susceptible to wind throw following intermediate treatments. Uneven-age regeneration treatments are not an effective method to regenerate desirable shade intolerant tree species needed to meet forest plan desired conditions.


30

FW-STD-TIMB-06: Even-aged stands shall generally have reached or surpassed culmination of mean annual increment of growth prior to regeneration harvest unless at least one of the following conditions have been identified during project development:

• Such harvesting would modify fire behavior to protect identified resource, social, or economic values.

• Harvesting of stands will trend the landscape towards vegetation desired conditions.

• Harvest uses uneven-aged silvicultural systems, thinning, or other intermediate stand treatments that do not regenerate even-aged or two-aged stands.

• Harvest is for sanitation or salvage of timber stands that have been substantially damaged by fire, windthrow, or other catastrophe or that are in imminent danger from insect or disease attack.

• Harvest is on lands not suited for timber production and the type and frequency of harvest is due to the need to protect or restore multiple-use values other than timber production.

All even-aged regeneration harvests comply with this standard. Stands proposed for regeneration originated approximately 100-200 years ago.

FW-STD-TIMB-07: The maximum opening size created by clearcutting, seedtree cutting, shelterwood seed cutting, or other cuts designed to regenerate an even-aged stand of timber in a single harvest operation shall be 40 acres. This standard applies to newly created harvest openings on NFS lands only and need not consider existing recently created openings on NFS, adjacent private, or other agency lands.

Exceptions to the 40 acre maximum opening size standard may occur when determined necessary to help achieve desired ecological conditions for the plan area. These desired conditions include providing for forest patterns and patch sizes that are consistent with natural disturbance regimes (see FW-DC-TE&V-03, FW-DC-TE&V-18; FW-DC-TE&V-19, FW-DC-SCN-01), providing for habitat that contributes to long-term persistence of native plant and animal species (see FW-DCTE&V-04), maintenance of instream channel conditions (see FW-DC-WTR-04 and 08), and maintaining or creating forests resistant and resilient to future disturbances (see FW-DC-TIMB-01 and -07). Maximum opening size exceptions to the standard are displayed in Table 21.

Table 21. Maximum opening size (acres) created by even-aged harvest in one harvest operation. Potential vegetation type Maximum opening size Warm-dry and warm-moist 80

Cool-moist 150 Cold 90

All openings are under the maximum opening size for the appropriate potential vegetation type, as displayed in Table 21 from the forest plan.

Consistency with other NFMA components

Analysis The potential environmental, biological, esthetic, engineering, and economic impacts of the timber sales associated with the Crystal Cedar Project, as well as the consistency with the


31

activities with the multiple uses of the general area, were assessed by an interdisciplinary review team consistent with (16 USC 1604(g)(3)(F)(ii)).

Roads In consideration of 16 USC 1608(b), temporary roads shall be designed with the goal of reestablishing vegetative cover on the roadway and areas where the vegetative cover has been disturbed by the construction of the road, within ten years after the termination of the timber sale contract either through artificial or natural means. Such action shall be taken unless it is later travel analysis determines the road is needed for use as a part of the National Forest transportation system or it has been determined that the road should be collocated with a future system trail.

In addition, roads constructed and reconstructed on the Forest shall be designed to standards appropriate for the intended uses, considering safety, cost of transportation, and impacts on land and resources (in compliance with 16 USC 1608(c) and to make progress toward achieving FW-DC-IFS-06).

Approximately 1.1 miles of new NFS road and 6 miles of temporary road will be constructed according to this decision. The NFS roads will be used for project activities and closed to public travel. Temporary roads will be rehabilitated after project activities and will be impassable to motorized vehicles. A project-level travel analysis was completed for this project (see project file exhibit P-3) and effects from these roads were evaluated in the environmental assessment. I have determined we meet the requirements of 16 USC 1608 (b) and (c).

Diversity The National Forest Management Act directs the Forest Service to “provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives.” The 2012 Planning Rule requires the inclusion of plan components, including standards or guidelines, that address social and economic sustainability, ecosystem services, and multiple uses integrated with the plan components for ecological sustainability and species diversity.

In response, the forest plan adopted a complementary ecosystem and species-specific approach (also called a coarse filter/fine filter approach) to maintain the diversity of plant and animal communities and the persistence of native species in the plan, including but not limited to at-risk species. Specifically, the record of decision for the forest plan concludes that “[e]cosystem and species-specific plan components in the revised land management plan will be sufficient to maintain the biological diversity of the Forest and the integrity of its ecosystems, including composition, structure, function, and connectivity,” (USDA 2018d, p. 18).

Based on consideration of consistency with the forest plan, the monitoring and design features of the selected alternative, analysis of effects, and the biological assessments (project file exhibits R-1 and G-12), I find this decision will continue to provide for a diversity of species and communities.

Endangered Species Act (ESA) Under the provisions of this Act, Federal agencies are directed to seek to conserve endangered and threatened species and to ensure that actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any of these species. Biological assessments, which disclose effects of the project on


32

endangered and threatened species, were prepared by our biologists with the following ESA determinations:

• Wolverine – no jeopardy

• Bull trout – no effect

• Bull trout critical habitat – no effect

• Meltwater Lednian Stonefly – no effect

• Grizzly bear – may affect, likely to adversely affect

• Canada lynx – may affect, not likely to adversely affect

• Canada lynx critical habitat – may affect, not likely to adversely affect

We consulted with the USFWS on these determinations and received their concurrence and biological opinion on October 31, 2019 (project file exhibit G-13).

There are no known occurrences of Spalding’s catchfly or water howellia within the project area.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) NEPA provisions have been followed as required by 40 CFR 1500. The project’s decision notice complies with the intent and requirements of NEPA.

Scoping for the project included public meetings; mailings that provided information about the project and solicitation for comments; public notices (legal advertisements); and field visits with affected landowners. Issues identified during pre-scoping and proposed action scoping for the Crystal Cedar Project assisted the interdisciplinary team and me in project design and with the analysis process. Project file exhibit folders D, E, and F contain public involvement documentation (mailings, news releases, social media postings, newspaper articles) and comments received. Appendix B of the draft decision notice provided my responses to comments received during the environmental assessment comment period. This decision notice describes the decisions and rationale.

Clean Water Act and Montana State Water Quality Standards The Crystal Cedar Project area does not contain water quality impaired streams and the project specific design features and BMPs will ensure that water quality is protected. Activities associated with the decision will comply with Montana State water quality standards. Water quality effects would be limited to the reach scale and may include temporary exceedance of state water quality standards for turbidity and total suspended sediment (Montana Department of Environmental Quality 2014, 2012) during road maintenance and construction, although changes to existing beneficial use classifications or water quality categories is not anticipated (updated EA, p. 79). The decision includes project design features and measures to protect the water resource (appendix A of the environmental assessment) and applicable BMPs to achieve water quality standards.

Clean Air Act The activities in the decision will be coordinated to meet the requirements of the State Implementation Plans, Smoke Management Plan, and Federal air quality requirements.


34

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, sex, religious creed, disability, age, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g. Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.), should contact the Agency (State or local) where they applied for benefits. Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities may contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, (AD-3027) found online at: How to File a Complaint, and at any USDA office, or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by:

(1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 1400 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20250-9410;

(2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or

(3) email: [email protected].

USDA is an equal opportunity provider.

Crystal Cedar Appendix A. Details of the Selected Alternative

35

Appendix A. Details of the Selected Alternative Vegetation treatments, which include commercial harvest, noncommercial treatment, and prescribed burning, will occur on 3,722 acres under the selected alternative. Approximately 24.6 miles of trail will be added to the National Forest System trail network. Associated treatments include post-harvest fuels treatment and site preparation activities, as well as reforestation activities, temporary road construction, road maintenance, invasive species control, and aquatic organism passage structure installation.

Table 2. Selected alternative summary of activities Trail construction Miles

Nonmotorized trail 24.2 Motorized trail 0.4

Road management Miles Temporary roads 6 NFS system road construction 0.9 NFS system road reroute 0.2 NFS system road aquatic organism passage structures 1

Vegetation treatments Acres Commercial thin 1,886 Seed tree 458 Shelterwood 32 Clearcut 13 Overstory removal 46

Total commercial treatment 2,435

Estimated sawtimber volume 18,811 CCF (9.4 MMBF)

Acres Sapling thin 558 Understory removal 292 Live birch cutting along open roadsa 280 Prescribed burning (ecosystem burns) 157

Total noncommercial treatment 1,287 a. Acres of live birch cutting along open roads overlap with acres of other types of vegetation treatment

Table 3. Selected alternative trails Trail number Designed use and trail class Managed use Miles

6400B ATV - 3 Pedestrians, bicycles, equestrian, ATV 0.2 6301B ATV-3 Pedestrians, bicycles, equestrian, ATV 0.2 TR01 Bicycle - 3 Pedestrians, bicycles 3.0

TR01A Bicycle - 3 Pedestrians, bicycles, equestrian 0.5 TR02 Bicycle - 3 Pedestrians, bicycles, equestrian 2.3

TR02A Bicycle - 3 Pedestrians, bicycles, equestrian 0.1


36

Trail number Designed use and trail class Managed use Miles TR03 Bicycle- 4-5 Pedestrians, bicycles 1.5

TR03A Bicycle - 3 Pedestrians, bicycles 0.5 TR04 Bicycle 3 Pedestrians, bicycles, equestrian 1.4 TR05 Pack and saddle - 3 Pedestrians, bicycles, equestrian 1.7 TR06 Pack and saddle - 3 Pedestrians, bicycles, equestrian 0.9 TR07 Pack and saddle - 2 Pedestrians, bicycles, equestrian 6.3 TR08 Bicycle - 3 Pedestrians, bicycles, equestrian 3.2

TR08A Pack and saddle - 3 Pedestrians, bicycles, equestrian 0.5 TR10 Pack and saddle - 3 Pedestrians, bicycles, equestrian 1.4 TR11 Pack and saddle - 3 Pedestrians, bicycles, equestrian 0.9

Total miles 24.6

Vegetation treatment descriptions In order to reduce tree densities and fuel loadings within the wildland-urban interface; improve the diversity and resilience of forest vegetation communities and associated wildlife habitat; and provide a mix of forest products to contribute to economic sustainability of local economies, several different silvicultural prescriptions are proposed:

Commercial thinning is an intermediate treatment that would retain the healthiest trees with large, well-formed crowns. The objective of this treatment is to improve forest growth and health. Leave tree selection would favor fire-tolerant species, including western larch, western white pine, and Douglas-fir. These trees would then have more growing space, light, nutrients, and water to allow them to develop into large trees more rapidly with improved insect, disease, and fire tolerance. Commercially thinned stands would not require reforestation. Three commercial thin units were identified as opportunities to promote aspen growth by removing encroaching conifers from healthy aspen clones. Commercial thinning would also achieve fuels reduction objectives by reducing tree densities and ladder fuels.

Shelterwood, seed tree, and clearcut are regeneration treatments that use timber harvesting to create a new forest stand of fire-tolerant tree species. These silvicultural methods would change the stands from large and medium tree structure classes to the seedling stage. The objective of these treatments is to reduce fuels and regenerate fire-tolerant species including western larch, western white pine, or ponderosa pine. These treatments would mimic a stand replacement fire where more than 75 percent of the overstory would be replaced reducing the potential for future crown fires. All regeneration harvests would have natural regeneration, or planting of desired species, or both.

Overstory removal is a treatment made in a stand with an older, upper canopy layer and a sapling stage understory. The removal of the upper canopy layer would be followed by a sapling thin to improve current and future stand health, growth, species composition, and tree sizes.

Sapling thin is similar to the commercial thin except it occurs in young stands less than 35 years old where trees are small. A portion of the existing trees are removed (trees at least 6 inches or smaller diameter at breast height), leaving a relatively well-stocked forested condition. The primary objective is to maintain or improve current and future stand health, growth, and species composition. Sapling thin would also achieve fuels reduction objectives.


37

Understory removal is similar to the commercial and sapling thin except the primary objective is fuels reduction. A portion of the existing trees are removed (trees at least 6 inches or smaller diameter at breast height), leaving a relatively well-stocked forested condition. Ladder fuels will be reduced and spacing between trees will be increased. Understory removal would also achieve increased forest growth objectives.

Live birch cutting is proposed along NFS Roads 1690, 10815, and 10816 in designated areas, up to 150 feet from the roadway, to provide opportunities for the public to harvest live birch for personal use with a permit.

Prescribed burning would return fire to the project area and reduce the risk and impacts of a relatively large stand replacement fire in the future. Prescribed burns would occur at low to moderate intensity burn severity conditions. Using prescribed fire combined with the other proposed treatments would reduce and break up the continuity of fuels across the project area. Another objective of burning is improving wildlife forage and winter range through stimulation of browse. Implementation of the prescribed burns could extend for several years into the future depending on the occurrences of desirable prescribed burning weather opportunities.

Post-harvest fuels and site preparation methods Some proposed harvest units would have post-harvest treatments designed to reduce forest fuels that are generated either through harvest activity or is naturally occurring in high amounts. In the case of all regeneration harvest units (seed tree, shelterwood, and clearcut) these post-harvest activities would also prepare the site for reforestation by reducing competing vegetation and creating favorable seed bed conditions. Post-harvest fuels treatment includes excavator piling and broadcast burning, as identified by vegetation treatment unit in Table 4. Prior to broadcast burning, fireline would be constructed where needed.

Reforestation methods Where regeneration harvest treatments are proposed (seed tree, shelterwood, and clearcut), a combination of natural and planting reforestation is planned. Planting would occur where insufficient natural regeneration of desired species is anticipated, due to lack of seed source or where restoring ponderosa pine or rust-resistant western white pine is an objective. Western white pine is an important, but declining species in this area and it would be planted where feasible. In addition to western white pine, other species that might be planted include western larch, Douglas-fir, and ponderosa pine.

Road management To improve public safety and provide access for resource management and fire suppression activities, approximately 0.9 miles of system road are proposed for construction and 0.2 miles of National Forest System road (Road 10813) would be rerouted. Approximately 6 miles of temporary roads would be constructed to the minimum standards necessary for log hauling on NFS roads. Temporary roads would be rehabilitated following timber harvest activities and would cease to function as roads. Approximately 0.5 miles of temporary roads are proposed on existing motorized trails and will be managed again as trail following project activities.

NFS roads used as haul routes would receive road maintenance in accordance with best management practices (BMPs) prior to log hauling. The objectives of road maintenance would be to reduce the concentration of subsurface and surface water runoff, minimize road surface


38

erosion, filter ditch water before entering streams, and decrease the risk of culvert failures during peak runoff events. Maintenance work could include culvert installation, replacement of existing culverts with larger culverts, installation of drainage dips and surface water deflectors, placement of rip-rap to armor drainage structures, aggregate surface replacement, aggregate placement to reinforce wet surface areas, ditch construction and cleaning where needed, and surface blading to restore drainage efficiency of the road surface. These actions would bring the roads up to current BMP standards, better accommodate traffic, and reduce deferred maintenance.

A need for an aquatic organism passage structure has been identified on NFS Road 1690 for an unnamed fishbearing stream within the Spring Creek subwatershed. The existing undersized culverts will be replaced with a culvert or structure large enough to accommodate a 100-year flood and provide aquatic organism passage in the stream.

Table 4. Selected alternative vegetation treatments by unit

Unit Acres Prescription Treatment method Fuels treatment

method Management

area 2 190 Commercial thin Summer tractor Excavator pile 7

3 12 Commercial thin Tractor Excavator pile 7


04a 8 Commercial thin Tractor - 7

5 39 Commercial thin Tractor - 7

6 120 Commercial thin Summer tractor Excavator pile 7

7 166 Commercial thin Tractor Excavator pile 7 9 37 Seed tree Tractor Excavator pile 6b

10 16 Commercial thin Log forwarder Excavator pile 7

14 63 Commercial thin Summer tractor - 7


17 86 Commercial thin Summer skyline Excavator pile 7

20 34 Seed tree Tractor Excavator pile 6b

23 4 Seed tree Summer skyline Excavator pile 7

25 17 Seed tree Tractor Excavator pile 7

25a 11 Seed tree Tractor Excavator pile 7



35 5 Understory removal Hand - 7 36 23 Seed tree Tractor Excavator pile 7

40 40 Commercial thin for

aspen release Tractor Excavator pile 6b

42 8 Understory removal Hand - 6b


44 16 Seed tree Summer skyline Broadcast burn 7


46 133 Commercial thin Summer tractor - 7



39


method Management

area 48 7 Seed tree Tractor Excavator pile 6b

49 23 Shelterwood Tractor Excavator pile 7

50 12 Commercial thin Tractor - 6b


53 10 Commercial thin Tractor - 6b

54 42 Commercial thin Winter tractor Excavator pile 7

54a 8 Commercial thin Log forwarder or

winter tractor Excavator pile 7

55 16 Commercial thin Summer skyline - 7

64 32 Commercial thin Log forwarder or

winter tractor - 6b


66a 2 Understory removal Hand - 7



aspen release Tractor Excavator pile 6a/7

70 31 Seed tree Log forwarder or


70a 8 Seed tree Log forwarder or


71 34 Commercial thin Log forwarder Excavator pile 7

72 5 Seed tree Summer tractor Excavator pile 7





86 41 Seed tree Tractor - 7

88 11 Seed tree Tractor Excavator pile 6b 92 4 Seed tree Tractor - 6b

93 26 Seed tree Skyline Broadcast burn 7


96a 2 Commercial thin Tractor Excavator pile 7





108 9 Shelterwood Summer skyline Broadcast burn 7

109 29 Commercial thin Winter tractor Excavator pile 7


aspen release Summer tractor Excavator pile 7




40


method Management

area

119 19 Commercial thin Log forwarder and

winter tractor Hand pile 7

119a 6 Commercial thin Log forwarder and

winter tractor Hand pile 7

120 10 Seed tree Log forwarder or

winter tractor Excavator pile 6b

121 13 Clearcut Tractor Excavator pile 2a


aspen release Tractor - 6c

123 77 Commercial thin Tractor Excavator pile 2a

126 15 Commercial thin Tractor Excavator pile 6b


129 54 Commercial thin Tractor Excavator pile 6b

130 6 Commercial thin Log forwarder or

winter tractor Excavator pile 2a/6b

131 55 Seed tree Tractor Excavator pile 2a/6b 133 24 Understory removal Hand - 7

133a 3 Understory removal Hand - 7

134 30 Understory removal Hand - 7




140 5 Understory removal Hand - 6c




144 14 Understory removal Hand - 6c

145 5 Understory removal Hand - 6a 200 4 Sapling thin Hand - 6b/7

201 21 Sapling thin Hand - 6b



204 14 Sapling thin Hand - 7







212 13 Sapling thin Hand - 6b 213 27 Sapling thin Hand - 7


41


method Management

area 214 7 Sapling thin Hand - 7

215 2 Sapling thin Hand - 6a/7









230 10 Sapling thin Hand - 6b 231 10 Sapling thin Hand - 7






237 46 Overstory removal with sapling thin Tractor - 6c

238 23 Sapling thin Hand - 6c



241 17 Sapling thin Hand - 2a/6c

242 17 Sapling thin Hand - 6c 243 27 Sapling thin Hand - 7












255 3 Sapling thin Hand - 6b 256 2 Sapling thin Hand - 6b

300 48 Prescribed burn Hand - 7

300a 59 Prescribed burn Hand - 7


42


method Management

area 301 50 Prescribed burn Hand - 7 NFS Road 1690 140

Personal use live birch cutting Hand

- 7

NFS Road 10815 105


- 7

NFS Road 10816 35


- 7

Design features Introduction These design features are an integral part of the selected alternative and are considered requirements. Many concerns expressed during the public involvement processes were addressed through development of design features to avoid or reduce potential environmental impacts.

Forest Service directives (manual and handbook), forest plan standards and guidelines, and all other laws, regulations, and policies that relate to managing National Forest System lands apply to the proposed activities and are repeated here only if clarification is required.

Aquatics

01 Other than trees that are determined to be a hazard at developed recreation sites and administrative sites, vegetation management (including ignition of prescribed fire) would not be permitted within inner RMZs. Exceptions also include prescribed fire which would be allowed to back through inner RMZs, pile burning consistent with accepted practices detailed in the Montana Guide to the Streamside Management Zone Law and Rules (MTDNRC 2006), and non-mechanical treatments such as sapling thinning and hand fuels reduction treatments, that do not impair the function or condition of aquatic and riparian resources. Broadcast burning would not occur within 50 ft of any waterbody. Unit layout would follow guidance detailed in FW-STD-RMZ-01.

02 At developed recreation sites, trees within the riparian management zone that are determined to be a hazard would be felled to provide for public safety, in consultation with a Forest aquatics specialist. Felled downed trees would be left on-site as needed to meet large wood desired conditions, where it is safe and practical to do so (FW-GDL-RMZ-07).

03 Application of site appropriate BMPs for water quality and forestry management would follow guidance detailed in volume 1 of the National Core BMP Technical Guide (USDA 2012) and associated Forest Service manual and handbook direction, Montana Guide to the Streamside Management Zone Law & Rules (MTDNRC 2006), and Montana Forestry BMPs (Ziesak et al. 2015) (FW-STD-RMZ-02).


43

04 No mechanical treatment would occur within 150 ft of Duck Lake or the unnamed perennial stream in proposed unit 119a. Mechanical treatment would be limited to the slope break, where appropriate, adjacent to Duck Lake or 150 ft in unit 119. Hand treatment would occur between 150 ft and 50 ft (above the existing road). The Forest hydrologist or aquatics specialist would be onsite to delineate appropriate RMZ for these two units prior to treatment.

05 In-stream activities (e.g. road or trail crossings) in the Crystal Creek drainage would be subject to timing limitations to protect westslope cutthroat trout (no activity May 1-July 15).To maintain free-flowing streams, new, replacement, and reconstructed stream crossing sites (culverts, bridges, and other stream crossings) would accommodate at least the 100-year flow, including associated bedload and debris.

06 Equipment storage, storage of fuels and toxicants, maintenance or refueling (other than for portable pumps associated with prescribed fire) would not be permitted within the RMZ.

07 Best management practices for protecting water resources from prescribed fire activities would follow guidance detailed in volume 1 of the National Core BMP Technical Guide (USDA 2012, 52-59). Ground disturbing fireline construction within RMZs should be avoided when practicable to do so. Any fireline constructed within RMZs would be fully rehabilitated (USDA 2012). All fireline constructed outside of RMZs would be stabilized with suitable water and erosion control measures. Water bar spacing for fireline stabilization would adhere to the following spacing guidelines:

Figure 1. Water bar spacing for fireline stabilization


44

08 Portable pumps, and associated fuel, utilized for prescribed fire would be fitted with spill containment kits adequately sized and installed per manufacturer’s recommendations.

09 All drafting hoses would be fitted with a minimum ¼-inch screen to prevent intake of fish and other aquatic species. No drafting will occur from ponds or fens.

Cultural resources

10 National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 reporting and consultation is required to be completed prior to any expenditure of federal funds to implement the selected alternative. Adherence to the regulations for implementing the National Historic Preservation Act insures that significant heritage resources are identified prior to project implementation.

11 To protect cultural resources, provisions shall be included in applicable contracts, agreements, and special-use permits for properties that are unevaluated, eligible for, or listed in the National Register of Historic Places (FW-STD-CR-01).

12 Identified cultural or archaeological sites will be flagged and avoided. Maps with site locations will be provided to the sale administrator and fuels specialist to ensure sites will be avoided.

13 Should cultural resources be identified during the course of project implementation, operations would cease and the heritage staff notified to complete resource documentation and evaluation of eligibility.

14 Trail locations will be surveyed for cultural resources prior to construction and relocated to avoid identified resources.

Non-native invasive plant species/noxious weeds

15 Off-road equipment would be power scrubbed or steam cleaned on the undercarriage and chassis before transport to the project area. Off-road equipment includes all logging and construction machinery for vegetation treatments and recreation development, except for log trucks, chip vans, service vehicles, water trucks, pickup trucks, cars, and similar vehicles. This cleaning shall remove all soil, plant parts, seeds, vegetative matter, or other debris that could contain or hold seeds. All subsequent entries of equipment from outside the project area back to the project area shall be treated in the same manner as the initial entry.

16 Herbicides would be sprayed within the road prism along designated haul routes before log hauling begins and after all purchaser activities are completed. Treatments would only occur during the periods from June 1 to July 15 or September 1 to September 30. Treatment of invasive plants would be consistent with the strategy outlined in the Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact (USDA 2001). Specific roads and mileage would be prepared in consultation with the Forest weeds coordinator.


45

17 To reduce the probability of establishment of new non-native invasive plant populations, areas where soils are disturbed by construction activities (e.g. road construction, landings, and skid trails) conducted or authorized by the U.S. Forest Service should be reseeded as soon as practical, during the appropriate time of year, using certified weed-free seed mixes (FW-GDL-NNIP-01).

18 Unit 133 would be hand treated and require additional equipment and gear cleaning when leaving the unit due to infestations of hoary alyssum and toadflax, and leafy spurge both in the unit and on the access road Parker Hill (NFS road 60111). All dirt and plant parts must be brushed off of gear and clothing prior to leaving the unit (and before entering vehicles) after operations. When approaching the unit, if using Parker Hill Road, all vehicles and gear must remain on the road when driving through the leafy spurge infestation, and not pull off to the side of the road until outside the infestation boundary. If there is to be burning, it shall only be in burn piles and not broadcast burning. All equipment and personnel shall avoid walking through the hoary alyssum infestation. No piles would be built in the hoary alyssum and toadflax infestations, nor would there be any trees or vegetation dragged through the infestations. The hoary alyssum and leafy spurge infestations would be monitored by the forest’s weed or botany staff

19 Unit 10 and 71 would be specified for in-woods processing with log forwarder operation, operating on slash mat to minimize the spread of leafy spurge in the unit. Equipment would be washed before moving to other units in the project area to prevent the spread of leafy spurge.

Plant species of conservation concern

20 Trail TR11A will be designed to avoid a species of conservation concern (SCC) population of crested woodfern along the trail route as well to avoid a SCC population of cottongrass in the fen at the trail destination, as well as designed to not impact the fen or the state listed species of concern inhabiting the fen.

21 Units 43 and the birch cutting units along Road 1690 would be designed to avoid SCC populations that extend outside the RMZs (FW-GDL-PLANT DIV-02).

22 Trail locations will be surveyed for SCC plants prior to construction and relocated to avoid identified SCC plants.

23 If populations of any other SCC plants are found prior to or during implementation, they would be evaluated and protected as necessary to retain population viability.

Recreation

24 Overnight use would be prohibited by special order at the proposed trailheads on NFS Roads 316, 1690, and 10815.

25 Trail design and construction would follow Forest Service handbook direction for trails management (FSH 2309.18) according to the assigned designed use and adhere to applicable best management practices detailed in volume 1 of the National Core BMP Technical Guide (USDA 2012, 87-102).


46

26 Where appropriate, barriers would be constructed to restrict motorized use of nonmotorized trails, with an emphasis on places were motorized and nonmotorized trails intersect. Barrier types would be selected based on the managed uses of the intersecting trails. Barrier types may include, but are not limited to barrier rock placement, “V” gates, chicanes, and timber kissing gates (project file exhibit M-9).

27 To discourage trespassing on private land and provide high-quality trail experience, trail

TR02 and would be located out of sight of private property lines where feasible. Skid roads crossing trail TR02 will be rehabilitated for 150 ft on either side of the trail by any site-appropriate combination of the following:

• Scarifying with hand tools or excavator to a depth equal sufficient to ameliorate the presence of detrimental soil compaction (usually between 2 and 12 inches);

• Seeding with the native plant mix as specified by the Forest botanist; • Placing woody material on the template; • Planting native shrubs or trees to augment natural vegetation; or • Placing barrier rock to discourage use.

28 The following trails would accommodate adaptive cycle technology such as handcycles: TR01, TR02, TR03, and TR04.

29 Any damage that occurs to National Forest System trails during logging or associated post-harvest fuels or site preparation will be repaired.

30 To protect the safety of the public using the area, contractors will be required to post signs warning the public of activities and traffic associated with the treatments.

31 If skid trails within thinning units do not currently fall on an existing off-road motorized trail, then these skid routes will be closed in a manner that does not encourage future off-road motorized use. Adequate signing and barriers will be a part of this effort.

Soils

32 Units 11, 54A, 64, 70, 70A, 120, and 130 would be summer logged with an in-woods processing, log forwarder system or winter logged with rubber tired skidders to minimize potential detrimental soil disturbance. These units will be monitored for soil disturbance. Other units may be selected at random for soil disturbance monitoring.

33 Units 42, 54, 81, and 109 would be winter logged with rubber tired skidders to minimize potential detrimental soil disturbance.

34 Ground cover and forest floor depth monitoring will occur in units 9, 25, 32, 36, 70, 72, 88, 98, 102, and 131 after all activities are complete.

35 All mechanized units that remove commercial products would be logged using designated skid trails. Equipment would occasionally leave the trails to access trees or accomplish other activities.

36 Skid trail spacing width must average at least 75 ft in all tractor harvest units. The goal is to occupy less than 15 percent of the treatment area including soil disturbance from skid


47

trails, temporary roads, and landings associated with past and proposed activities (FW-STD-SOIL-01).

37 Implementation monitoring will occur on all temporary road segments after restoration activities are complete.

38 All existing roads and skid trails would be reused to the extent feasible unless doing so would adversely affect soil, water, or other resources. If roads or trails cannot be reused, their extent and location must be considered when laying out additional skid trails.

39 Logging would occur when soils are dry as determined by the hand feel method (project file exhibit K-18).

40 Sale administrators will monitor soil moisture conditions prior to allowing equipment to begin operations in summer. This monitoring must be documented in the Timber Sale Daily Report.

41 All temporary roads constructed for this project will be rehabilitated by any site-appropriate combination of the following (FW-STD-SOIL-03):

• Removing any installed culverts or temporary bridges; • Recontouring the entire template to natural ground contour (figure 2); • Where recontouring is unnecessary due to lack of slope, scarifying with

excavator to a depth equal sufficient to ameliorate the presence of detrimental soil compaction (usually between 2 and 12 inches);

• Seeding with the native plant mix as specified by the Forest botanist; • Placing woody material on the template; or • Planting native shrubs or trees to augment natural vegetation.

42 Winter logging will be restricted to frozen or snow cover conditions. Winter logging requires that there be enough snow to prevent muddy water from mixing into the snow where equipment operates. This will require about ten inches of snow. The depth of snow varies with the snow conditions. It takes more dry powder snow than wet dense snow to protect the soil surface. Soils must be frozen enough to prevent deformation of the soil surface where equipment operates.

43 All mechanical fuel reduction will be accomplished with excavators. Excavators will, to the extent feasible, remain on skid trails.


48

Figure 2. Road cross-section showing location of original ground line

Terrestrial ecosystems and vegetation

44 All snags of western larch, ponderosa pine, and black cottonwood trees greater than 20 inches d.b.h. shall be retained in vegetation treatment areas (FW-GDL-TE&V-06).

45 In units 36, 65, 70, 73 and 101 leave all live western larch, western white pine, and Douglas-fir trees greater than 17 inches d.b.h., large downed wood (greater than 9 inches diameter), and snags and decayed, decadent trees greater than 15 inches d.b.h (FW-GDL-TE&V-06).

46 Within timber harvest areas, snags, or live replacement trees shall be retained at or above the minimum levels displayed in table 5 (GA-NF-STD-01).

Table 5. Minimum average number of snags or live replacement trees per acre greater than 10 feet tall to retain within timber harvest areas

Forest dominance type

Potential vegetation

type

Total minimum number of snags or live replacement

trees per acres of the largest d.b.h. present

(greater than 15” d.b.h.)

Minimum number of snags or live replacement trees

per acre (greater than or equal to

20” d.b.h.) All except

lodgepole pine Warm-moist 7 2

All except lodgepole pine

Cool-moist 5 2

Lodgepole pine All 2 1


49

47 Regeneration harvest units should retain a minimum of three live reserve trees per acre of suitable western larch or ponderosa pine trees greater than 17 inches d.b.h., where present (FW-GDL-TE&V-09).

48 Downed woody debris of 12 tons per acre or less where it exists, is the desired amount of material to be retained in treatment units within the wildland-urban interface. A maximum of 15 tons per acre of downed woody material should be retained in treatment units within the wildland-urban interface.

49 Desired downed woody debris for RMZ vegetation treatment areas and units outside the wildland-urban interface is 22 tons per acre for warm-moist potential vegetation type (PVT) and 25 tons/acre for cool-moist PVT.

50 Retain (where it exists) downed woody debris which includes the longest material available (e.g., 16 feet long or longer) and the largest diameters available (e.g., greater than or equal to 15 inches d.b.h.), sufficient to achieve the tons per acre. (FW-GDL-TE&V-08)

51 Excluding live birch cutting units, hardwood trees would not be targeted for removal and would be left intact to the extent possible, considering operational feasibility.

Scenery

52 Shape individual units, to the extent feasible (economically and technically), to create a natural-appearing unit. Vegetation treatment units should avoid symmetrical shapes, straight lines and angles, disproportionate (to surrounding untreated units) opening and cluster sizes, and artificial lines and patterns. Additionally, treatments should follow natural topographic breaks and changes in vegetation, treat the entire landform and along roadways vary unit sizes, widths, shapes and distances from center lines as much as possible (FW-GDL-SCN-03).

53 In units bordering within the wild and scenic river corridor or North Fork Road, stumps should be cut to 8 inches or less in height. Slash, root wads, and other debris will be removed, buried, burned, chipped or lopped and scattered to a height no greater than two feet within 150 ft or until topography makes unit not visible (whichever is less distance) in these sensitive viewsheds (MA2-STD-02, FW-GDL-SCN-03).

54 Mask (black out) any painted boundary trees or leave tree marking that is clearly visible from the wild and scenic river or the North Fork Road. It is not necessary to extend this treatment further than 150 ft or until topography makes unit not visible (whichever is less distance) from the viewing locations. Other options to mitigate this visual impact include: use cut tree marking or using removable tags to designate leave or boundary trees (MA2-STD-02, FW-GDL-SCN-03).

55 In units along private land boundaries, use irregular clumping and blending of unit edges to avoid introducing dominating lines that could result from introducing unnatural appearing edges (FW-GDL-SCN-03).

56 When using cable logging systems, keep cable/skyline corridors as narrow as possible to reduce contrasting linear effects. Use irregular clumping to create mosaic landscape character on edges of corridors, use open areas adjacent to corridors. (FW-GDL-SCN-03).


50

57 In unit 121 retain Flathead river-side vegetative screening where it exists within 100 ft of the river edge. Saplings, brush and other vegetation within 100 ft of the river are often the most effective screening to soften visual impacts of harvest openings (MA2-STD-02).

Wildlife

Ungulate habitat 58 In vegetation treatment units within elk or mule deer winter range (units 2, 14, 16, 17, 23, 44, 72,

96, 108, 112, 113, and 114) and white-tailed deer winter range (units 6, 46, 55, and 109), maintain, where present, full-crowned trees (primarily Douglas-fir) in the overstory to provide snow intercept cover (FW-GDL-WL DIV-01). Douglas-fir should be favored over western larch in these units.

59 If funding is available, in regeneration units 9, 11, 23, 29, 31, 42, 48, 49, 70, 70a, 74, 81, 86, 92, 93, 99, and 101, decadent shrubs (primarily maple and willow) should be hand slashed throughout the units to improve forage conditions for forest ungulates.

60 If funding is available, in commercial thin units 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 14, 16, 17, 27, 40, 46, 46a, 47, 50, 51, 53, 54, 54a, 55, 68, 71, 82, 85, 96, 109, 112, 114, 119, and 126, decadent shrubs (primarily maple and willow) should be hand slashed throughout the units to improve forage conditions for forest ungulates.

Riparian habitat 61 Where new openings would be created in riparian management zones through even-aged

regeneration harvest (units 9, 20, 25, 25a, 29, 31, 32, 33, 42, 44, 65, 70, 70a, 73, 74, 86, 88, 101, 102, 108, 121, and 131), each created opening’s distance to cover would not exceed 350 ft to provide wildlife habitat structural diversity, connectivity, and cover (FW-GDL-RMZ-09). Where the distance to cover would be greater than 350 ft, intermediate treatments would be used within the RMZ portion of the regeneration unit to maintain connectivity for wildlife (FW-GDL-RMZ-09).

62 Where vegetation treatment would occur within riparian management zones, all snags greater than or equal to 12 inches d.b.h. would be retained within the harvest area to contribute towards more diverse forest structure and desired habitat conditions by providing higher snag and downed wood densities (once the snags fall) as compared to areas outside riparian management zones (FW-GDL-RMZ-10).

63 In vegetation treatment units within one-half of a mile of Flathead River (121, 123, 130, and 131) and Spoon Lake (42, 48, 65, 74, 81, 99, 119, 119a, 141, 202, 205, 209, and 217), live ponderosa pine, western larch, or black cottonwood trees greater than or equal to 20 inches d.b.h should be retained where they exist to provide bald eagle nesting and roosting habitat (FW-GDL-TE&V-10).

64 In the birch firewood cutting area, some of the largest birch trees (approximately six trees per linear mile of road) will be marked for retention as wildlife trees to provide future snags for nesting and foraging (FW-DC-TE&V-09).

65 Birch cutting within the RMZ will only occur in designated areas approved by wildlife, botany, and aquatic specialists. Birch cutting will not occur within the inner RMZ (FW-STD-RMZ-06).


51

Timing restrictions 66 To reduce the risk of disturbance to the grizzly bear population, project activities would not occur

in spring habitat during the spring time period (April 1 to June 30). For any excepted activities, the duration of the activity and use of restricted roads may be limited (FW-GDL-TE&V-01). Project activities occurring along open roads would not be subject to this timing restriction.

67 To reduce the risk of disturbance to nesting common loons on Spoon Lake and Cedar Creek Reservoir, vegetation treatments would not occur from April 1 to August 1 within 150 yards of active nesting and nursery sites. This restriction would apply to units 119, 119a, 82, and 82a (FW-GDL-WL DIV-05).

68 If it is determined that wolf denning is occurring in the project area, no vegetation activities would occur within 0.25 mile of active den or rendezvous sites from April 1 to July 1 (FW-GDL-WL DIV-05).

69 If an active northern goshawk nest is located in or adjacent to a vegetation treatment unit, project activities would not occur within 0.25 mile of the nest from March 1 to August 15 (FW-GDL-WL DIV-05).

Access management 70 Project would be designed so that on-the-ground implementation of project activities affecting

access management conditions (e.g. activities requiring use of temporary or restricted roads) would not exceed 5 years to reduce the potential of grizzly bears being disturbed or displaced (FW-GDL-IFS-01). Exceptions may be made where necessary, however, if an extension is required, reasons would be documented in writing prior to authorization of the extension.

71 There would be no net decrease to the baseline for secure core and no net increase to the baseline open motorized route density or total motorized route density in the affected bear management subunit (FW-STD-IFS-02) and access management conditions should be restored to pre-project levels within one year after completion of the project in order to reduce the duration of grizzly bear displacement or disturbance due to project-related activities (FW-GDL-IFS-02). This includes rehabilitation of temporary roads, returning restricted roads used as haul routes to administrative access only (10810, 10810A, 10811, and 10813), and replacing the berm on 10877.

72 The 10-year running average for temporary changes to access management conditions in the affected bear management subunit would not exceed 5 percent increase in open motorized route density, 3 percent increase in total motorized route density in each subunit, and 2 percent decrease in secure core (FW-STD-IFS-03).

73 Newly constructed firelines should be located away from public access points to prevent their use as motorized travel routes (FW-GDL-FIRE-03). Where fireline must be constructed near public access points, fireline should be treated in a manner to make inaccessible to wheeled motorized vehicles during the non-denning season.

Grizzly bear-human conflict 74 Trails will be constructed to limit the risk of bear-human conflict by avoiding areas of dense

vegetation, such as that found in riparian habitat, maintaining sight distances, and limiting speed


52

of travel. In addition, information on how to avoid and respond to bear-human encounters will be posted at trailheads (FW-GDL-IFS-15).

75 Contractors, operators, and their employees should be informed of procedures for safely working and recreating in grizzly bear country and of food and wildlife attractant storage special order prior to beginning work and annually thereafter, in order to reduce the risk of grizzly bear-human conflicts (FW-GDL-WL-01).

Fire and fuels

76 Implementation of the prescribed burns may extend for several years into the future depending on desirable burning weather opportunities. Prescribed burns would be ignited using hand ignition and could occur in the spring (with coordination with wildlife biologist), summer, or fall when suitable burn and air quality conditions exist. Prior to broadcast burning, fireline would be constructed where needed.

77 Prescribed burning prescriptions would be prepared and implemented to not exceed moderate burn severity conditions and would target the treatment of the existing shrub/grass dominated openings. Prescribed burns should be implemented in a way to maintain, where present, patches of full-crowned trees (primarily Douglas-fir) in the overstory to provide snow intercept cover within the burn unit boundaries (FW-GDL-WL DIV-01).

78 Prior to implementing prescribed burns in units 300 and 300a, measures should be taken to prevent negative impacts to full-crowned trees (primarily Douglas-fir) retained in the overstory of regeneration units 44, 72, and 108 to provide snow intercept cover (FW-GDL-WL DIV-01).

Air quality

79 On the Flathead National Forest, prescribed burning is generally accomplished when dilution, dispersal, and mixing conditions are considered fair to excellent. Prescribed burning requires a permit from the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group and the burn must be implemented within the regulatory framework. This includes daily approval from the Flathead County Air Quality hotline and the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group

Duration and timing of activities

80 Units 119A and 119 will require winter logging and in-woods processing to reduce ground disturbance, minimize weed spread, and avoid potential seasonal conflicts with local residents and visitors. Fuels piling and treatment could occur during non-winter season.

81 Units 68 and 128 will require winter logging to reduce ground disturbance, minimize weed spread, and avoid potential seasonal conflicts with local residents and visitors. Fuels treatment and sapling thinning could occur during non-winter season.

!

!|

!

!

!|

!C

02

03

04

05

06

07

09

10

14

16

17

20

82

25

32

33

35

210

40

45

46

47

49

50

51

53

54

55

96

64

67

68

70

71

73

85

86

88

92

93

98

102

109

200

201

202

204

300

23

205

206

208

209

211

212

301

213

42

44

48

214

215

217 65

220

72

74

223

224

226

227

228

229

230

232

234

235

99

108

112

113

120

114

119

121

122

123

126119a

36

70a

203

66a

96a233

101

25a43

300a54a

131

129

130

128

141

142

143

134 243

135

136

137

133133a

236

237140

238

239242

240

144

231

04a

241

244245246

247 248249 250

251252

253 254255

256

145 Lake Five

Teakettle

Mountain

SpoonLake

CedarLake

£¤2

486

316

1659

1690

Glacier Rim

Blankenship Bridge

10815

Hungry Horse

Coram

MartinCity

Glacier

National

Park

Columbia Falls

486

N

10816

NORTHFORK FLATHEADRIVER

MIDDLE FO R KFLAT

HEAD RIVER

FLATHEADRIVER

CEDAR CREEK

CRYSTAL CREEK

K

A

L

C

G JF

D

I

O

B

E

H

S1

Selected ActionsVegetation Management

Sapling ThinUnderstory RemovalOverstory RemovalPrescribed BurnCommercial ThinSeed Tree CutShelterwood CutClear CutPersonal Use Live Birch Cutting

Road ManagementNFS System RoadTemporary RoadTemporary Road on New NFS System TrailTemporary Road on Existing NFS System Trail

Recreation ImprovementsNew Trails

Aquatic Improvements!C Aquatic Organism Passage Structure

Crystal Cedar: Selected Alternative

*For Details See Map 2*

General Legend

US Highway 2

Ownership

Waterbodies

Primary Access Roads

Routes

Crystal Cedar Project Boundary

Streams

¯0 1 20.5Miles

Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI)

Fork

Roa

d

North

North

Fork

Road

Other Roads

Map 1

Glacier National Park LandPrivate LandState Land

National Forest System Land

NFS Trails Open Seasonally to Motorized Use

!

!!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!!

!!

!! !

!

!

!

!!

!!

!! !

! !!

!

! !! !

!

! ! !

! !

!!

! ! !

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

! ! ! !

!!

!

!! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!! !

!!

!

!

!!!

!! ! ! !

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!!!

!!!!!!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!!

!!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!!!!!!!

!

!

!!

!!!

!

!!

!

!!!

!

!

!! ! !

! !

!

!

!!!!

! ! !

!!!!!

!!!!!

!!!!!

!!!!!!

!

!! ! !

!

!!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!!!!

!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

! !!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

! !!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!! !

! !! !

!

!

!!!!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!! ! !

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!! !

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!!!!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!!!!

!!

!!!!

!!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!!

!

!!!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!!

!!

!! !

!!

!!

!! !

!

!

!!

!!

!! ! !

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!! !

!! ! ! !

!

!

! ! !!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!!!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!! !

!

!!

! !!

! !

!

!

!!

!! !

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!!!

!!

!!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!!

!!!

!!

!

!!!

!

!!

!!

!

! ! ! !! !

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!!

!

!!!

!!

!

!!!

!!

!

!

!!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!!!

!

!!

!!!

!!!

!

!!

!

! ! ! !! !

! !!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

"t

"t

"t

"t

!C

Columbia Falls

CedarLake

1659

1690

10815

316

10812108

12A

10812

486

North

For

k Roa

dNo

rth F

ork

Road

1081

0

1087

7

1659

TR02

TR04

CEDAR CREEK

CEDAR CREEK

CRYSTAL CREEK

TR01

T R 03A TR03

TR01

TR01A

TR02 A6 30 1 B

6400B

TR0 8A

TR10

TR05

TR07

TR10

TR0 6

TR11

TR0 7

TR08

TR 07

TR04

TR08

TR02

Crystal Cedar: Selected Alternative

Selected ActionsRecreation Improvements"t New Trailheads

Trails and Managed Use! ! ! ! ! ! Pedestrians, Bicycles

Pedestrians, Bicycles, Equestrian, ATV! ! ! ! ! ! Pedestrians, Bicycles, Equestrian Aquatic Improvements!C Aquatic Organism Passage Structure

Vegetation ManagementUnits

Road ManagementTemporary RoadNFS System RoadPotential Temporary Road and Trail

*For Details See Map 1*

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!! !

!

!!

! ! !

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!! !

!

!! !

! !

!

!! !

! !

!!

!!

! ! !

!! ! !

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

! !! ! !

!!

!

!

! ! ! !! !

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!! !

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

! !

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!! ! ! ! !

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

! ! ! !

!! !

!! ! !

!

! !

!!

!!

!!!!

!

!! ! ! !

!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!

!

!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!

!!

!! ! ! ! !

!

!!

!!

!! ! !

!

!! !

!

!

! ! ! ! !! ! !

!! !

!!

! !

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

"t

Fourth Avenue Trailhead Inset

10815

4th Ave

6300

6303

6302

T R03

TR01

T R 03

A

TR01A

!!

!!

!!

!! !

!

!! !

! !

!

!! !

! !

!!

!

!! ! !

!! ! !

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

! !! ! !

!!

!

!! ! ! !

! !!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

! !

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

! !

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!! ! ! ! !

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

! !

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

"t

"t

1690 Trailhead Inset& Waving Bear Pullout

1690

10815

6400

6500

6500B

6400

A

TR01

640 0

B

T R05

Map Location Referenced to Project Boundary

General Legend

Ownership

Crystal Cedar Project Boundary

Existing Routes

0 0.50.25Miles

0 0.20.1Miles

0 0.20.1Miles

Primary Access RoadsStreams Waterbodies

¯

Existing Trailheads

NFS Trails Open Seasonally to Motorized Use

"t

Other Roads

Map 2

Private LandNational Forest System Land

NFS RoadsConnectingProposed Trails

Colocation

Documents

Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact · Crystal Cedar Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact 2 selected alternative is found in appendix A of this decision